
Book 




am 



Linco 




^gff^m"' 






ABRAHAM LINCOLN 



AN HISTORICAL ESSA^ 
IN TWO PARTS 



-BY- 



EL ALLEN 

■i 



G 1 1895 



VLBION, MICHIGAN. 
1895. 



Ea-5- 



COPYRIGHTED, 1895, 
BY EUGENE C. ALLEN. 



flntrofcucton? HAotc. 



This Essay is the result of research work dime in the Depart- 
ment of American History, Albion College. It does not purport to 
be a comprehensive account of the events which it covers. Only 

the most salient of them are touched upon. 

The Author's main object has been to show the vital connection 
Abraham Lincoln had with this phase <>f cur National History; but, 
to do this, much depends upon a proper presentation of that His- 
tory since the Compromise of L850. This has been attempted in 
Part One, which deals with this Compromise; with the election oi 
1852; with the rejection of Webster; with the Dred Scotl decision; 
with the Lecompton Controversy; and with affairs in Kansas. 

Part Two takes up the discussion of our political life from 1858 
to 1863, and is written primarily to show the task which devolved 
upon Lincoln therein. Especially is it sought to put him forth in 
his proper light, as the logical Defender of the Union. Bv a 
study of his personal traits, of his mental nature, and of his char- 
acter in general, the reader is led to see something of the philosophy 
of his selection by the people, and it is hoped thai the Essay will 
not be without interest to those who have occasion to mak< 
study oi this most fascinating of all American characters. 

It has not been found expedient to employ full marginal n» 
or references, and it is indicated in the context, or by mark 
quotation when the work of others is used. A bibliography ol the 
.works and publication^ consulted in the preparation of this Es 
may be found at its close. 

Albion College, May JO, 1895. 



Synopsis of Contents. 



part 1f. 

The Compromise of 1850 — Its Effect — The Fugitive-Slave Law — The 
Campaign of 1852— The Convention of the Democrats— Of the Whigs — 
Pierce— Webster — The Seventh-of-March Speech — Its Effect — Its Signifi- 
cance — State Papers of Pierce — Revolution of Sentiment — The Repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise— History of the Repeal— Douglas— Popular Sov- 
ereignty — Doctrines of Calhoun — The Dred Scott Decision— Its Heart- 
lessness— Its Bad Logic— Historically at Fault — A Blow at Popular Sov- 
ereignty—History of the Struggle in Kansas. 

©art If, 

Di tuglas and Lincoln — Characterization of Lincoln — His Physical 
Appearance — Lincoln's Humor — His Oratory — Lincoln as a Politician — His 
Moral Bravery — The Campaign of 1S5S — The-House-divided-against-itself 
Speech — The Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas — The Cooper Institute 
Speech — Study of the Debates — Their Meaning — Douglas Attacked in Con- 
gress—Defends Himself — The John Brown Episode— Seward's Speech of 
February 29, i860— Lincoln's Estimate of Brown — Fred Douglass' — Conven- 
tions of i860— Constitutional-Union — Democratic — Republican — Seward 
and Lincoln in the Convention— Philosophy of the Nomination of Lincoln — 
Buchanan's Message — Character of Buchanan — His Weakness — The Crit- 
tenden Resolutions— Debates in Congress upon Them— The Formation of 
Lincoln's Cabinet Three Points in Administration of Lincoln here Stud- 
ied—Lincoln's Journey to Washington— His Speeches — His Inaugural — Its 
Influence— The Border States — Emancipation— Letters of Lincoln — His 
Letter to the Unconditional Unionists of Springfield— The Forces which 
made Lincoln the Logical Defender of the Union — His Honesty — His Lucid- 
ity of statement — His Epigrams — A Study of the Second Inaugural Address - 
The Religious Character of Lincoln How it Appealed to the Nation -Lin- 
coln an American -A Product of our Civilization — The Nation's Son— Three 
Forms of Democracy— Jackson Lincoln- The Democracy of the Future. 



Hlnabam Xincoln; an Ibietorical Cesa^, 



ze^^^t i. 



Events SucccciMtui the Compromise ot 1850 anfc previous to 
tbe "]Lincoln=S>oucilai5 iDcbntCi?. 



The Compromise of 1850 was fondly looked upon by 
union-loving- men of all sections of the country as the best 
obtainable, and as being - one altogether likely to inaugu- 
rate a new "era of good feeling." Clay and Webster threw 
the weight of their influence upon the side of compromise. 
Congress imagined that the Act laid low the ghost of 
disunion, and President Fillmore gave it the validity of his 
signature, not because of its pro-slavery bearing, as some 
maintained, so much as of his earnest belief in the influence 
of the bill for peace and the Union. 

Of the measures he said in Annual Message to Congress, 
Dec. 1850: 

" It would be strange if they had been received with immediate 
approbation by people and state- prejudiced and heated by the 
exciting- controversies of their representatives. I believe ti 
measures to have been required by the circumstances and condition 
of the country. * They were adopted in the spirit of conciliation 

and for the purpose of conciliation. I believe that a great majority 
of our fellow citizens sympathize in that spirit and purpose, and in 
the main approve, and are prepared, in all respects to sustain tl 
enactments. " 

It may fairly be presumed that President Fillmore 
accurately voiced the threat preponderance of sentiment 
then existing throughout the Union. Whatever condem- 
nation of his course fell upon him came with redoubled 



6 

energy since he was from the North. But the Compromise 
bill of 1850 was declared entirely constitutional by both 
Webster and Crittenden, and Fillmore could have done little 
else consistently than sign it. 

It harbored one element of discord. The Fugitive- 
Slave Law was unnecessarily harsh. It was enacted at the 
behest of the most ultra Southerners, who desired that 
there should be no misunderstanding- concerning- their 
hostility to the anti-slavery agitation universal at the 
extreme North and throughout the Northwest. But its 
passage betrayed a curious condition of affairs. The bor- 
der states were the ones which had suffered most from the 
violation of the Fugitive-Slave Law of 1793, yet represen- 
tatives from these states would have been satisfied with a 
milder provision. Clearly such a string-ent enactment 
showed a spirit not altogether born of the apprehension 
that slavery was in dang-er, and the passage of the Act was 
fore-ordained to cause restlessness among-st the liberty- 
loving- citizens of the free-states. Moreover, it partook of 
the nature of arrogance, since the slaveholders were con- 
stitutionally entitled to a sensible fugitive-slave law, and 
one less severe would have secured the active co-operation of 
many at the North, who, as it was, would manifest little 
g-enuine interest in the enforcement of the law which 
obtained. If the South meant it as an insult to the Aboli- 
tionists she succeeded, but paid dearly for her success. 

Notwithstanding- the unpopularity of the Fugitive- 
Slave clause, it is interesting- to note the sentiment of the 
various sections at the North concerning- the Act. In New 
England the Compromise measures were especially welcome. 
The industries of this section had suffered from lack of 
Congressional attention; largely because of slavery agita- 
tion, and New England merchants looked forward with 
deep satisfaction to an improved and unembarrassed pros- 
ecution of trade. The people of Boston were noticeably 
overheated in their rejoicings; but such men as Parker, 
Phillips, and Josiah Quincy attacked the measures upon 
constitutional as well as humanitarian grounds. In New 
York and Pennsylvania public g-atherings g-ave vent to the 
satisfaction of the people, and merchants who were not 
willing- to sig-n their names to calls for these g-athering-s 



were heralded as Abolition tradesmen. A public spirit of 
petty persecution seemed to be the lot of all who would not 
concur in the general sentiment of congratulation. As 
was done elsewhere, so the people of Ohio and of the North- 
west joined in the spirit of rejoicing - , though here an ominous 
faction opposed the adjustment from an ethical point of 
view. Public men — politicians — of the North who were 
anti-slavery in sentiment regretted the vindictive character 
of the Fugitive-Slave Act, but counseled obedience to law. 
Their words were not without effect. For the most part 
the law was successful in its operation, thoug-h a few 
instances like that of Shadrach and Thomas Sims were 
enoug-h to show that the spirit of the statute was utterly 
repudiated by numbers of citizens of unblemished character. 
Men like Phillips, and Garrison, and Hig-g-inson, who had 
no political records to be marred or broken, bore the issue 
and forced it upon unsympathetic leaders in public life. 
Still the g-eneral sentiment at the North was law abiding-, 
and did not uphold mobbish resistance. But, at the same 
time, it was g-enerally conceded that the Fug-itive-Slave 
Law laid too greatly athwart the public conscience. 

Notwithstanding- the trouble which arose from this 
feature of the Compromise, the g-eneral effect of the meas- 
ures was good. Men imagined the anti-slavery controversy 
settled, and both North and South thought less of the 
threats of secession so freely offered during the parliamen- 
tary struggle. The effect upon the South was especially 
conserving. South Carolina and Mississippi alone were 
unsatisfied and a convention of the Southern Rights Asso- 
ciation held at Charleston, resolved upon secession. But 
this sentiment was defeated by an overwhelming majority 
at the polls. In Mississippi a similar contest was inau- 
gurated by the competition between Jefferson Davis and 
Senator Foote who respectively took the stump upon the 
issue of State rights and the antithetical alternative of 
upholding the Compromise of 1850. Although Davis was 
extremely popular, he was defeated after a thorough can- 
vass. Plainly the people of the South were for the Union; 
and well they might have been ! Legislative experience 
had taught them that through its preservation everything 
was to be gained, and little to be lost. As yet, the anti- 



slavery sentiment at the North had not mustered power 
enough to defeat them in an}- vital need, and were not the 
politicians from this section boldly advocating- Union at 
all hazards? Had not Webster dared public opinion in his 
Seventh-of-March Speech, and had not Clay won peace 
through compromises alwavs favorable to the men of the 
South? 

So stood affairs at the opening of the Thirty -second 
Congress, which met Dec. 1, 1851. The Democrats had 
made gains in the canvass of this year, yet anti-slavery 
sentiment was reinforced by some of its most efficient cham- 
pions; Chase and Hale, Sumner and Wade. To this for- 
ward movement there was one notable exception. After 
thirt}' years of distinguished service, Thomas H. Benton 
was relegated to the rear, because he would not cringe 
before the threats of his pro-slavery constituents. In the 
House there were 142 Democrats; 91 Whigs. The Whigs 
who had upheld the Compromise suffered more than did the 
Democrats, but this was due to the fact that members of 
the Whig party had represented the ultra anti-slavery dis- 
tricts at the North. 

President Fillmore, in his Annual Message, again 
reflected the tendency of public opinion when he declared 
that "the agitation which for a time threatened to disturb 
the fraternal relations which make us one people is fast 
subsiding. " At various times during this session, how- 
ever, Congress sought to open debate upon the question of 
acquiescence in the legislation of 1850, but it was not until 
the 5th of April, 1852, that a vote was secured. It stood 
103 to 74 in favor of the declaration that the Compromise 
should be regarded a permanent settlement. Of course the 
heft of the opposition came from the North. 

As the campaign of 1852 approached it became evident 
that the Democratic party would once more present a 
united front. On the other hand, though the Pree-Soil 
party termed itself the Free-Soil Democracy, it could hope 
for more Whig than Democratic votes in the states of Ohio 
and New York. The good reputation of the Compromise 
redounded to the welfare of the Democratic party. It was 
the misfortune of the previous Whig administration that 
the organization of the territory acquired from Mexico, 



opening- the question of slavery as it did, fell to its lot. 
The agitation widened the breach between the Whig-s of 
pro-slaver}* and those of anti-slaver}- proclivities. Conse- 
quently when the campaign of 1852 drew on, though the 
Democracy was divided as to candidates, it was united as 
to policy. 

The leading name on the Democratic list was that of 
Gen. Cass. True he had been defeated four years since, 
but it was hoped the schism in New York would not again 
manifest itself, and the personal popularity of Taylor was 
out of the way. Cass was from as free a state as any in 
the Nation. The great preponderance of sentiment 
through-out his immediate constituency was anti-slavery, 
yet his servitude to the "peculiar institution " was abject. 
But his Nicholson letter had not attracted the attention 
nor stirred the jealousy which its descendant — Douglas' 
Popular Sovereignty scheme — was to call forth. Gen. Cass 
was a man of purest morals, and though past seventy vears 
of age still maintained his vigor. He had made an honor- 
able career, and the people counted him more safe than 
brilliant. His most dangerous competitor was James 
Buchanan, also a man of age. These were the embodi- 
ment of " Old Fogyism, " so called in an ungrateful manner 
by the partisans of Douglas and Pierce. Buchanan hailed 
from Pennsylvania, a free-state harboring much of Intter- 
ness in regard to the Fugitive-Slave Act. While Northern 
by birth and education, he had no moral scruples conc< rning 
slaver}-, and had obtained prestige in Democratic councils 
by his support of Jackson and as Polk's Secretary of State. 

Next to Wm. L. Marcy, of New York, Stephen A. 
Douglas was strongest besides Cass and Buchanan. He 
had devoted friends, but they were indiscreet in thrusting 
forward, to the detriment of rival candidates, the char 
of senility. Yet, they were very effective with their plea 
for the recognition of "Young America." Douglas was 
noted for bravery, even to the point of recklessness, and 
commanded the quality of admiration which always attaches 
to impudent aggressiveness. Forty-nine ballots were taken 
before the final result was reached. This ballot was a stam- 
pede for Franklin Pierce, he having 282 votes t<> <> for all 
others. 



10 

In the nomination of Pierce, "Old Fogyism" was 
defeated, yet triumphed. Douglas had hoped to receive 
the distinction, but the virulent attacks upon the seniors, 
for which attacks his friends were responsible, snatched 
the victory from him and bestowed it upon an American 
not only "young-, " but generally unknown. 

So far as the effect of the nomination for party success 
was concerned, it was probably the best that could have 
obtained. Indeed, the only question in the minds of many 
was to secure a candidate acceptable to all sections. At 
first sight Pierce did not seem to be this candidate. Prom- 
inent Democrats were mortified and angered over the turn- 
ing down of honored leaders for the sake of the "Young 
America" idea. If Cass and VanBuren should have per- 
sisted in their quarrel, Buchanan or Marcv would have 
been eligible. But the main thing was to secure a man 
whose sentiments were not in actual conflict with those of 
his party. The nominee at once put them at rest upon this 
point. He accepted the nomination, as he said, "Upon the 
platform adopted by the convention, not because this is 
expected of me as a candidate, but because the principles 
it embraces command the approbation of my judgment, 
and with them I believe I can safely say there has been no 
word or act of my life in conflict. " That he had no inde- 
pendent ideas was all the better for his candidacy. The 
party had been passing through a vigorous contention of 
ideas, and it desired time for a breathing spell. To have 
opened the question of slavery agitation would have been 
fatal to the success of any candidate or of an} r party. 

Franklin Pierce was a son of New Hampshire, and, at 
the time of his nomination, had not reached his fiftieth 
year. He was a graduate of Bowdoin College, and a lawyer 
who had declined many offers of distinction. At the age 
of thirty-three he represented his state in the United States 
Senate, being the } 7 oungest member of the body. He had 
served modestly in the Mexican war, and was considered a 
man of fair ability. It is probable he did not care for the 
nomination, and shrank from participation in public life. 
But he was known to be an ardent supporter of the Com- 
promise Measures and this was all his party asked. 

Regarding the Compromise of 1850, the platform was, 



11 

of course, strongly imbued with the " finality" sentiment. 
It affirmed that Congress had no power under the Consti- 
tution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions 
of the several states; that such states were the sole and 
proper judges of everything appertaining to their own 
affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; and deprecated 
the meddlesome interference of the Abolitionists, declaring 
this interference to have an injurious effect upon the hap- 
piness of the people, and charged it with endangering the 
safety of the Union. To these sentiments were added the 
two following resolutions : 

" Resolved, That the foregoing- proposition covers, and is 
intended to embrace, the whole subject of slavery agitated in Con- 
gress, and therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing 
on this national platform, will abide by. and adhere to, a faithful 
execution of the acts known as the ' Compromise ' measures settled 
by the last Congress, — the act for reclaiming fugitives from service 
or labor included; which act being designed to carry out an express 
provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelity thereto be re- 
pealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency. 

"Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts 
at renewing in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery 
question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made. " 

With its Northern candidate, and its so-called neutral 
platform, the party appealed to a people willing to listen 
to the cry of peace when there was no peace. 

After the lapse of a fortnight, the Whigs assembled in 
Baltimore for the purpose of making their platform and 
selecting their candidate. As usual, many of the ablest 
men of the country were present; amongst them Choate, 
Fessenden, Evarts, Sherman, and Clayton. Only three 
names were presented. They were those of Daniel Web- 
ster, President Fillmore, and Gen. Scott. Fillmore had 
disappointed the anti-slaver}- men of the party, but was in 
possession of the good will of their pro-slavery brethren— 
especially at the South. Hence he made a strong candi- 
dacy for the nomination. As for Gen. Scott, he was won- 
derfully helped by his war record. A Southerner by birth, 
he readily accepted the non-agitation policy of Whiggery. 
Moreover Generals Harrison and Taylor had been the suc- 
cessful Whig candidates for the Presidency, and military 
glory is a powerful argument with the people at large. 

The name of Daniel Webster was presented in a speech 



12 

of remarkable eloquence by Choate, but upon the first bal- 
lot secured only twenty-nine votes, and during- the whole 
fifty-three ballots never received more than thirt}*-two. 
His strength was in New England, yet, New England was 
by no means solid for him. His only hope laid in a possi- 
ble deadlock between Fillmore and Scott — a complication 
which never came about. On the fifty-third ballot, Gen. 
Scott was nominated. 

The platform acquiesced in the Fugitive-Slave Act, 
deprecating any meddling with the question, and declared 
the system, as presented in the Compromise Measures, 
"essential to the nationality of the Whig party and the 
integritv of the Union. " Strangely enough, negative 
choice was given altogether by Northern delegates who had 
voted for Scott in opposition to Webster and Fillmore. 

So far as candidates and platforms were concerned, 
touching the slavery issue there was small choice between 
those of either Democratic or Whig party. Both stood 
upon the same ground, and both were fondly of the opinion 
that a party say-so and a national vote-so, would forever 
silence the disunion heresies of the so-called Abolition 
fanatics. 

The most remarkable circumstance connected with the 
Whig convention, and, indeed, with the whole campaign 
was the rebuke and rejection of Webster. After his Sey- 
enth-of-March Speech all hope of political preferment in 
his case was idle. No Southern constituenc}- relished the 
idea of the candidacy of one who had so thoroughly van- 
quished the state rights champion— Hayne. Moreover, the 
impression prevailed that Webster had not always given his 
cordial support to the Fugitive-Slave Act. So far as the 
North was concerned, Webster's influence had sadly waned. 
His Seventh-of-March Speech was regarded by anti-slavery 
Whigs as rank apostacy. It was in reply to this speech 
that Wm. H. Seward made the statement: "There is a 
Higher Law than the Constitution, " which statement 
though not so intended, ' was taken up by the ultra anti- 
slavery men as a condemnation of the Fugitive-Slave Act. 
With intense interest everyone awaited the speech of 
Webster. Anti-slavery Whigs hoped and expected the 
foremost expounder of the Constitution would take at least 



13 

as advanced ground as that assumed by the slave-holding 
Taylor. Consequently, their disappointment was crushing 
when, in his second great defense of the Constitution, the 
" Sage of Marshtield " seemed to play into the hands of the 
South. Undoubtedly the judgment of forty-five years ago 
that whatever may have been its spirit, the speech was an 
egregious blunder, will always hold. But the attacks upon 
it were cruel, and, viewed in the light of unimpassioned 
research, the harsh claim that the speech was a bid for the 
Presidency can hardly be maintained. With no proper 
sense of justice may one seek to lay upon the memory of 
Daniel Webster the stigma of demagogism. Bej-ond ques- 
tion, he suffered from the effects of Presidential fever 
through the grandest years of his life, but he was not a 
man who could throw aside patriotic consistencv for the 
sake of self-advancement. 

Shorn of its rhetorical verbiage, the speech presents an 
humble acquiescence in the Compromise Measures of the 
eminent Kentucky- Senator. It was an unburdening of 
inner emotion, which long pent up, burst forth into manlv 
utterance. Ouietl}- studied to-day, it appears to display 
none of the cringing subserviency which Wendell Phillips 
thought he saw. In a just analysis of the speaker's mean- 
ing, the spirit of the very first sentence of the oration 
should be carried through it all. No one can doubt the 
sincerity of these words : "I wish to speak to-day, not as 
a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an 
American. " Perhaps, because of the sectionalism which 
then prevailed, this was counted a mistake — a throwing 
away of all personal conviction, But such a judgment is 
read into the speech. With irresistible logic, the orator 
placed the responsibility of slavery intrigue where it 
belonged; at the door of the South. He also showed that 
in Congress the North had been a virtual ally to the pro- 
slavery schemes of the South; not a willing one, perhaps, 
but a consistent one, because of the compromises in the 
Constitution which bound her to help protect the ' ' system. " 
With a statesman's vision, Webster foresaw the true 
nature of secession, and he shuddered over the contempla- 
tion. "Peaceful secession," said he, "is an utter impos- 
sibility. Is the great constitution under which we live. 



14 

covering- this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted 
away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt 
under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost un- 
observed, and run off? No, Sir ! No. Sir ! I will not state 
what mig-ht produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, 
I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that disrup- 
tion itself must produce; I see that it must produce war, 
and such a ar was I will not describe in its two fold char- 
acter. " 

Judged by its logic, the Seventh-of-March Speech is 
not greatl}- at fault. Indeed, some of the propositions, so 
hotly repudiated at the time of their utterance, were long- 
after admitted by the repudiators themselves to avert that 
war which Webster saw, but would not "describe in its 
two fold character. " Such, for instance, is the arg-ument 
for a better fugitive-slave law. Here the South had a real 
grievance; for ever}' day showed how increasingly hard it 
was for the North to live up to this part of her contract. 
The fact also has been pointed out that Webster's objection 
to the application of the Wilmot Proviso to New Mexico, 
" was statesmanship of the hig-hest order. " 

The cardinal mistake of the oration was its cold spirit* 
toward the slave and his friend at the North. In a cool, 
calculating - , strain the speaker defined the absolute, consti- 
tional, rights of the slave-holder, and the duty of the North 
to stand by these rig;hts. He seemed too much concerned 
in the welfare of the slave-holders themselves, and too 
calmly accepted the results of the Mexican imbroglio to suit 
his Whig- constituency, let alone the Abolitionists. Of 
these latter people he said some things harsh, if not utterl}- 
cruel. It was an error the Abolitionists construed as slan- 
der couched by Webster in the following- words : "Then, 
Sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which I am unwill- 
ing- to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear no- 
tions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I think 
their operations for the last twenty years have produced 
nothing- g-ood or valuable." And ag-ain : "Everything- 
that these agitating- people have done has been, not to en- 
large, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, 
the slave population of the South. " These were strang-e 
words from a Massachusetts Senator, and the}- struck the 



15 

anti-slavery hosts at the North as a blow in the face. They 
show that Webster not only deprecated further agitation, 
but that he sat in judgment on the motives of men, the re- 
sult of whose actions he divined with far-seeing abilit}-, 
Had he confined himself to the discussion of principles, 
and to the laws of their operation, the censure heaped upon 
him would have been less. It was the polished sting in 
his words that goaded its victims to frenzy. It was the cov- 
ert sneer in the allegation that, for twenty 3'ears, their so- 
cieties had produced ''nothing valuable" which gave to 
the Abolitionists mortal offense. Nor is this a matter of 
surprise. Even though mistaken as to method, these men 
were doing about all that was being done toward the over- 
throw of slavery, and they were possessed of the highest 
humanitarian spirit. But they were despised and insulted 
enough without having to endure the taunt of disloyalty 
from one who was supposed to represent the acme of free- 
state sentiment. However, the impartial pen of History 
has vindicated the spirit of Webster's prophecy. He was 
right in feeling that there was much to be feared of the 
radical anti-slavery agitators. 

A more heroic and, at the same time, inconsistent 
character than the typical Abolitionist has never crossed 
the stage of American political life. As to political 
authority, he considered no pledge binding which assumed 
to define moral attitude. To him the Constitution was a 
compact with darkness, and the Union a Union with hell. 
Rejecting the premises of constitutional opinion, he could 
not admit the logical sequences of the same. He was 
Freedom's John the Baptist. He spoke the unpopular truth 
because he dared not repress it. Without a murmur he 
accepted society's obloquy and fraternal ostracism because, 
sweet as were the privileges these denied, they had been 
bitter used to cover principle. He was so constituted that 
the more clearly he stood in the light of moral revelation, 
the less able became he to make allowance for darkened 
places and groping hearts His intensity of purpose 
carried him past the sin to the sinner, past the sinner to 
those oblivious of the sin, so that he did not separate the 
individual from the institution. To him there was no 
shade of difference between the doin«r of a wron<r ami the 



16 

quietly witnessing" the doing- of the same wrong. Every 
da}' he became more ideal, less concrete. Once keenly 
alive to it, he lost the power to comprehend the true re- 
lation of things — even of those things which concerned him 
most. He prayed without ceasing that the bondmen might 
be free, yet he plotted against the Union whose perpetuity 
was the sole hope of freedom. The impressions he made 
were multitudinous. As he misjudged others, so others 
misunderstood him. To some he appeared the ill-tempered 
ranter, and was correspondingly despised; to others he 
seemed the misguided fanatic, and was therefore propor- 
tionately shunned; before still others he rose as the dan- 
gerous disturber of the Union, and thus became an object 
of intense alarm; to others yet, he spoke as the voice of 
Truth out of time, and in them were his works manifest in 
the day of the Nation's sorest trial. Of necessity, during 
the last years of the conflict, the Abolitionist became a 
negative and illogical force. He could stir the strife, but 
he lacked the secret of its administration. Mistaken as he 
was, and merciless too, his work ma}' not be overvalued, 
though it is often indiscriminately lauded to the detriment 
of his memory Indeed, his greatest good to the cause was 
accomplished about the time of Webster's denunciation. 
He sublimely accomplished his mission when he struggled 
the fiercest for rights guaranteed by a Constitution which 
he bitterly hated, for it was under the spur of his appeal 
that John Quincy Adams took the lead in the surpassingly 
noble struggle in Congress for the right of free petition. 

The truth is, Webster suffered the fate of any peace- 
maker between parties who contend over principles of 
fundamental concern, in a conflict which is " irrepressible." 
But his spirit was that of unselfish statesmanship, which, 
in lieu of the tact of Clay for constructive compromise, he 
sought to throw into the balance, hoping thereby to effect 
an equilibrium simply impossible of attainment. One does 
not wonder that he was deceived. He states he had 
thought carefully, and conferred with able friends; that 
his mind was made; that he had " a duty to perform," and 
that he meant "to perform it with fidelity." Taking into 
consideration the nature of the man, his past record and 
his subsequent one as well, History must affirm that he 



17 

tried to perform a ministry which he conceived to be a re- 
sponsibility. But he was not closely enough in touch with 
the very men whom he discountenanced. The note from 
Wm. E Channing, appended to his oration in the published 
volume of his works, throws a flood of light upon the mo- 
tives which led him to the making of the speech. 

On the other hand, the speech was distasteful to 
ultra pro-slavery men, because it reiterated Webster's 
opposition to the annexation of Texas, and reaffirmed his 
sympathy with the idea conveyed in the Wilmot pro- 
viso. For this reason it received the denunciation of 
Jefferson Davis; than whom no man of the South was more 
slyly (if slowly) drawing this section of the country to his 
way of thinking. 

Viewed in the light of succeeding events, the Seventh-of- 
March Speech is seen to have surpassed boldness and be- 
come bravery. Let no one deceive himself into thinking 
Webster imagined he should not lose friends whose friend- 
ship he cherished. But so anxious was he to avert the 
terrible consequences he knew would flow from the con- 
troversy; so eager was he to maintain the flag of his 
country with " not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single 
star obscured,"' that miscalculating the effectsof hisoratory, 
he hoped to secure the countenancing of the Compromise 
measures upon the part of the North, and, at the same 
time, to alia}- the fears of the South. The mistake cost 
him more than any other man, or set of men, or principles 
held by men. 

The chief value of the speech lays in its honesty, inten- 
sified by a prophetic vision of the future The candid 
critic is bound to admit that its author was torn with con- 
flicting doubts concerning the stability of the Union. It is 
childish to affirm that Daniel Webster deliberately trampled 
his life-long convictions under foot; and this too, at a 
time when such action could result in nothing short of 
political suicide. To so think is not only to regard him 
devoid of moral principle, but it is to write him down as 
being either in his dotage, or as an incomprehensible fool 
— neither of which few will be inclined to admit. The 
time was not greatly distant when loyal men were to offer 
far greater compromises to the slave owners than Webster 



18 

ever was willing - to make. The influence of the Seventh- 
of-March Speech marks an epoch in the struggle 
for the Union, for while it angered men, it opened 
their eyes as well. The arraignment of the Ab- 
olitionists only led this class to intensify their labors 
and to drive the wedge of anti-slavery sentiment deeper. 
Granting this the final controvery over the Union was the 
more plainly emphasized. Webster's anxiety for the safety 
of the Nation served to impress the real danger she was in, 
and while the Abolitionists dinned their cry of Whig apos- 
tasy, quiet, but more thoughtful men took counsel of the 
speaker's pathetic appeal for the Union, and the witness of 
years has testified to the power of this appeal. Though 
she spurned him immediately, and with reluctance received 
him again to her bosom, when the shock of war came, and 
the sun did rise "on States, dissevered, discordant, bellig- 
erent, " inspired by the words of her most illustrious son, 
New England stood for the Union with the firmness of a rock. 

The campaign of 1852 sounded the death-knell of the 
Whig party. It had done its best to compete with the 
Democracy in stopping the ear of the Nation to the cry of 
the slave. The difference between it and the Democracy 
was more in character than principle, and this fact accent- 
uated its disintegration Not only did its attitude disgust 
the friends of liberty at the North, but it also repelled its 
own members who were lovers of liberty. Webster was 
placed without the pale of Presidential possibility. Clay 
was even then on his death-bed, and Gen. Scott was fitted 
neither by nature nor training to attract a hearty personal 
following-. As was natural, the benefit of the Compromise 
accrued largely to the Democracy, because they were united 
upon it, and a people tired of the controversy took them at 
their word and elected Franklin Pierce President. 

Even a cursory study of the various state papers of 
President Pierce will reveal as remarkable a revolution in 
personal sentiment as any like documents in our history 
can show. To one unacquainted with extraneous affairs, 
these documents of themselves would betray profound 
change in public opinion, provided in them the President 
voiced the sentiment of the people. Electing their ruler 
upon the policy of non-interference in the then existing 



19 

status of the slavery question, the country expected this 
ruler to correctly embody its idea in his Inaugural Address 
and in his Message to Congress. However, one may be- 
lieve that notwithstanding - their real desire to see the issue 
forever closed, the people looked with comparatively slight 
interest upon any other feature of the Inaugural Address. 
This very anxiety gave the lie to their professions of un- 
concern. 

True to his bidding, the new Executive spoke in terms 
which could not be misunderstood. He said : 

" I hold that the laws of 1S50, commonly called the ' Comprom- 
ise Measures, ' are strictly constitutional, and to be unhesitatingly 
carried into effect. * * I fervently hope that the question is at 
rest, and that no sectional, or ambitious, or fanatical excitement 
may again threaten the durability of our institutions, or obscure the 
light of our prosperity. " 

In the second Annual Address of President Pierce, the 
student searches in vain for even a word concerning the 
legislation of 1850. Beyond the fact that it is a strong 
State rights document, nothing noteworthy may be stated. 

December 31, 1855, the President sent to Congress his 
third Annual Message. After discussing foreign affairs, 
and matters of minor domestic concern, the Message took 
up the question of resistance to Federal law in Kansas, and 
proceeded to launch into an extended historical defense of 
the State rights dogma. It took pains to rebuke the North- 
ern commonwealths for their alleged interference with the 
social affairs of their Southern neighbors, and taunted 
them with being unable to properly manage abuses within 
their own boundaries. The history of the Compromises of 
1820 and 1850 was next discussed, following which came 
these most remarkable statements : 

" When more recently it became requisite to organize the ter- 
ritories of Nebraska and Kansas, it was the natural and legitimate, 
if not the inevitable consequence of previous events and legislation, 
that the same great and sound principle, which had already been 
applied to Utah and New Mexico, should be applied to them that 
they should stand exempt from the restrictions proposed in the act 
relative to the state of Missouri. 

" These restrictions were, in the estimation of many thoughtful 
men, null from the beginning, unauthorized by the Constitution, 
contrary^ to the treaty stipulations for the cession of Louisiana, and 
inconsistent with the equality of the states. 

" * * If any vitality had remained in them it would have 



20 

been taken away, in effect, by the new territorial acts, in the form 
originally proposed to the Senate at the first session of the last Con- 
gress. It was manly and ingenuous, as well as patriotic and just, to 
do this directly and plainly, and thus relieve the statute-book of an 
act which might be of possible future injury, but of no possible fu- 
ture benefit: and the measure of its repeal was the final consumma- 
tion and complete recognition of the principle, that no portion of the 
United States shall undertake, through assumption of the powers of 
the general government, to dictate the social institutions of any 
other portion. " 

Further on, the Message declared : 

"The measure [repeal] could not be withstood upon its merits 
alone. It was attacked with violence, on the false or delusive pre- 
text that it constituted a breach of faith. Never was objection more 
utterly destitute of substantial justification. When, before, was it 
imagined by sensible men, that a regulative or declarative statute, 
whether enacted ten or forty years ago, is irrepealable — that an act 
of Congress is above the Constitution? " 

A. comparative study of the aforementioned documents 
discloses complete revolution in sentiment. Whence this 
radical disavowing- of principles? Why this trampling 
upon the issue which, of all others, in fond hope of 
"finality" upon the matter of slavery, placed President 
Pierce at the head of the Nation? A careful resume ol the 
history of Congressional action after and immediately suc- 
ceeding 1853-1854 will be necessary for the answer. 

Early in the year 1853, Senator Douglas, as chairman 
of the Senate Committee on Territories, tried to get through 
the Senate a bill for the organization of the territory 
of Nebraska. At this time, the chairman of the 
House Committee on Territories was Senator Douglas' 
fellow-citizen, Wm. A. Richardson, of Illinois. On Feb. 
8, 1853, the matter came up in the lower branch of Con- 
gress, under the direction of Mr. Richardson. As the de- 
bate proceeded, a member arose with the question: "I 
wish to inquire of the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Giddings) 
who, I believe, is a member of the committee on Ter- 
ritories, why the Ordinance of 1787 is not incorporated in 
this bill? I should like to know whether he or the com- 
mittee were intimidated on account of the platforms of 
1852? " To this inquiry Mr. Giddings replied by pointing 
out the fact that the provisions of the Missouri Compromise 
prohibited the introduction of slavery, and that the question 



21 

was not touched at that time because are-enactment of the 
Missouri Compromise measure was unnecessary. With this 
understanding-, the bill obtained passage by a tremendous 
majority, and found its way into the hands of Mr. Douglas. 
The Senate committee reported it back Feb. 17, without 
amendment, but as the session was near its close the bill 
could not attain sufficient attention to pass; consequently 
it was laid on the table. 

At the next session of Congress, an Iowa Senator in- 
troduced a Territorial bill which was referred to Douglas' 
committee, by whom it was reported to the Senate with 
the statement that the committee abided by the Compro- 
mise of 1850; neither affirming nor denying the validity of 
this Compromise. Such was the nature of the report, but 
a hidden history lay within. Truth is, the Democratic 
party was badly split, and the cogitations of the Territorial 
Committee revealed an alarming state of affairs. The 
Southern representatives declared that they had Consti- 
tutional protection in carrying their slaves into Federal 
Territories, while Douglas maintained his idea of State 
sovereignity; laying the question upon the shoulders of the 
inhabitants of a territory, or of even a state. As no set- 
tlement could be reached, the matter was left open to some 
future decision of the Supreme Court. 

On Jan. 16, 1854, Congress was startled over a proposi- 
tion, offered by Senator Dixon of Kentucky, to repeal the 
Missouri Compromise. Mr. Dixon, who was a Whig, stated 
to the Senate that when the bill to establish a Territorial 
government in the territory of Nebraska, should come up 
for consideration, he should offer the following amend- 
ment : 

"Sec 22. And be it further enacted, That so much of the eighth 
section of an act approved March 6, 1820, entitled. ' An Act to au- 
thorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and 
State Government, and for the admission of such State into the 
Union upon an equal footing - with the Original States, and to Pro- 
hibit Slaver)' in certain Territories, ' as declares; 'That in all that 
territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of 
Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude, 
slaver)- and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment 
of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall 
be forever prohibited, ' shall not be so construed as to apply to the 
Territory contemplated by this act, or to any other Territory of the 



22 

United States; but that the citizens of the several States or Terri- 
tories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of 
the Territories of the United States, or of the States to be formed 
therefrom, as if the said act. entitled as aforesaid, and proved as 
aforesaid, had never been passed." 

With the movement ripe for revolution, and its avowal 
by Dixon, who was influential in his party-councils, the 
scheme was readily accepted by Stephen A. Douglas and 
David R. Atchison of Missouri, acting - vice-President of 
the United States; though both of these men had declared 
themselves opposed to any opening - of the question. The 
Senator from Illinois had said, in 1849, that the Missouri 
Compromise was " canonized in the hearts of the American 
people as a sacred thing which no ruthless hand would ever 
be reckless enough to disturb." Later he resolved to make 
no further speeches upon the slavery issue, and he hoped 
no occasion for such speeches would exist. Of all men in 
the country he would have been the last suspected by the 
people at large in the undertaking of such a revolution- 
ary scheme as the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; and 
no less on record against opening the question of slavery 
agitation stood Senator Atchison, who, hardly a year be- 
fore, in Congress declared his willingness and determina- 
tion to submit to the Compromise. When the Dixon bomb 
was exploded in the Senate, these men found themselves 
anxious, and ready to turn their backs upon previous utter- 
ances; ready to throw the whole weight of their personal 
and official influence into the balance in favor of repeal. 
Atchison even expressed a willingness to resign his posi- 
tion as vice-President, if he could thereby gain the chair- 
manship of the Senate Committee on Territories. Douglas 
promptly relieved his mind of this burden, b}^ agreeing to 
introduce the measure himself. Douglas was aware of the 
danger of the step. In a conversation with Foote, he posed 
as a martyr to consistency, and though deprecating his loss 
of prestige at the North, which he foresaw, urged by " the 
sense of duty," as he called it, which animated him, he 
was ready to make the sacrifice. To the scheme President 
Pierce gave his willing acquiescence, and agreed to adopt 
the amendment as an administration measure. 

On Jan. 23, 1854, Douglas introduced his third Nebraka 
bill into Congress, organizing two territories instead of 



23 

one, and declaring the Missouri Compromise "inoperative." 
The effect upon Congress and the country would be difficult 
to describe. Nearly four months of debate ensued during 
which administrative threat and promise were applied in 
turn. It was an additional spur to party action that the 
resolution condemning - the Compromise measures of 1820, 
on the ground that they were rendered inoperative by the 
provisions of the Compromise measures of 1850, was sub- 
stituted for the original, 

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the 
abrogation of the Compromise of 1850, brought into sur- 
passing prominence the name of its author, and, while it 
virtually destroyed all his chances for the Presidency, 
made Stephen A. Douglas the logical leader of Northern 
Democrats. Henceforth he was to play an incessant part 
in the great drama which was hastening through its last 
ten years to completion. 

The ambition of this man knew no bounds, and he was 
quite willing to play a desperate role if thereb} T , he might 
gain its satisfaction. He read past history aright, and 
present history told him that the price of political prefer- 
ment was complete subservience to the demands of the 
slave oligarchy. Polk and Pierce were creatures of this 
power, and had not the North tamely submitted to the 
cool assumption of these men that the South was an out- 
raged part}-? Besides, though elected as Whigs, and 
upon Whig principles. Tyler and Fillmore (especialh* the 
former) had found it convenient to abrogate their party 
pledges in order to get along with the Southern people — 
though in these cases it had not been an unwilling abroga- 
tion. Douglas thought that in the long run, the charge of 
Abolitionism upon them would silence the critics at the 
North, and there was no hope of success without a united 
South. But he miscalculated events Because he had no 
conscience upon the slaverv question, he vainly imagined 
few others of influence had. Though he carried his 
measure through Congress* and had the satisfaction 
of seeing it become the law of the land,f his victory 
soon came to bear all the sting of defeat. It was his lack 
of moral principle in matters political which led him to 
make the fatal leap, not into the arms of an all-powerful 

* By a vote of 37 to 14 in the Senate, and of 113 to 100 in the House. 
t May 30. 



24 

South, as he supposed, but into that current which bore 
him beyond the Scylla and Charybdis of Northern anti- 
slavery Whiggery and Democracy, only to cast him forth 
against the Republican rock of a united anti-slavery 
sentiment. 

Few characters in our history better represent the 
possibilities of our Democracy than that of Stephen A. 
Doug-las. More than in any other nation, in this where 
there is a will reaching - for distinction there is a way, and 
to him who understands the secret of this way, life pre- 
sents a succession of accomplishments, the enjoyment of 
which is only enhanced by the bitterness of occasional 
defeat. 

Douglas won distinction while yet a youth in Illinois, 
because of characteristics dear to the heart of the rough 
frontiersmen with whom he associated. He had brain, 
pluck, and all the self-assurance imaginable. His physical 
habit was no small factor in his success. Short, well- 
formed and sturdy, he commanded admiration by his brav- 
ery, for he was as ready to thresh the neighborhood's bully 
as he was to act as his referee in a game of fisticuffs, and 
he was as willing to mount the stump as to do either. 
Equipped with a good education, which he knew how to 
employ, he never approached a man but to use him. He 
made many friends, but they were to be stepping-stones to 
higher positions, dreams of which his overweening 
ambition always kept before him. 

His tact was of the keenest order. He could so handle 
a jury that it would declare black white or white black. 
Without arguing the point at issue he would deploy all 
around it, with burly demonstrations of oratory and daz- 
zling generalities of speech; would seem to exhaust the sub- 
ject, yet might hardly touch it. His intense interest merely 
served to enforce the wrong impression, and like a whirl- 
wind he could carry all men with him, save the few most 
independent thinkers. He was skilled in the arts of the 
demagogue. He sized an individual at first glance, and 
proceeded to bully or to wheedle him as the case might re- 
quire. Willing to serve the people in any way if they 
would serve him, he often worked himself into inconsis- 
tencies, to extricate himself from which he relied upon his 



wonderful powers of deception in matters of casuistry. 

But Doug-las was more than a mere demagogue. He 
possessed legal ability of a high order, and was an orator 
of unusual worth. He was a firm friend of the common 
people, and as a circuit judge maintained the dignity of 
the bench. His opinions in law commanded the respect of 
the legal fraternity, and few could elucidate a point more 
clearly than he. While his great independence of charac- 
ter secured for him deyoted friends, it also made enemies 
and made them where they were particularly influential. 
If for no other reason, the South looked upon him as a dan- 
gerous man because he had opinions. Had he sat in Fill- 
more's place, or Pierce's, he would not have been the pli- 
ant tool they were. 

Notwithstanding his aggressive self-independence, 
Stephen A. Douglas would probably have succeeded had it 
not been for an inherent defect, not so apparent then, but 
more real. He was intrinsically selfish. With the ap- 
pearance of openness he combined subtlety to the last de- 
gree. Though no more unscrupulous than thousands 
about him, he was far abler, and used his ability to sub- 
serve selfish ends, and to cloak inherent defects of moral 
character. But he relied upon the arts of the demagogue 
for success, and ought not to have been surprised when 
shifting public opinion no longer swore by him. 

For all his weakness, he possessed many traits of true 
manhood and nothing more unjust to his memory may be 
imagined, than the attempts of certain political historians 
to depict him as the arch-enemy of all things honorable. 
The sobriquet "Little Giant " was applicable in more re- 
spects than one, and the honest student cannot fail to ad- 
mire his indomitable will-force, his brain-power, and his 
splendid audacity, which, many a time, reached the altitude 
of bravery, as, for instance, in the case of his speech at 
Philadelphia, July 4, 1S54, denouncing Know-nothingism. 
This refreshing bravery in the face of an unfriendly audi- 
ence won the admiration of enemies, and he lo\ed nothing 
dearer than an attack which placed him on the defense, 
when his courage might win to him friends. Had he been 
honest with himself, it is probable no avenue to fame and 



26 

to large usefulness would have been closed to him by the 
suffrage of his fellow countrymen. 



Popular Sovereignty, or, as its enemies termed it, 
"squatter sovereignity" was no new thing with Douglas. 
The first notable declaration of this doctrine is to be found 
in Cass' Nicholson letter, aimed against the principle of 
the Wilmot proviso. The idea was in contradistinction to 
that of Calhoun, who based his exposition upon two lead- 
ing tenets: 

(1. That the power given to Congress to dispose of, 
and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting 
the territory of the United States referred only to the ter- 
ritory then held by the United States in which slavery had 
already been prohibited by the Ordinance of 1787. Conse- 
quently in the cases of Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, 
Congress should legislate, under the Constitution, to pro- 
tect the slave owners therein, and wherever it found slav- 
ery it should protect it by ample legislation; and 

(2. That the Constitution being a compact between 
separate and sovereign States, Congress, representing the 
States, had no right to discriminate against settlers from 
slave-states emigrating into the territories, because this 
would be depriving citizens of such states of their rights 
in the territories, which were" held as common property. 

The Nicholson letter contended that the principle in- 
volved in the "Wilmot Proviso" should be kept out of the 
National legislature, and left to the people of the Confed- 
eracy in their respective local governments; and that the 
people of the territories should be permitted "to regulate 
their internal concerns in their own way. " This was the 
kernel of Douglas' doctrine of Popular Sovereignty. 

At first, the South gladly accepted the dogma of the 
Illinois Senator as she had great hope for the territorial 
adoption of slavery, but when this hope was shattered, the 
whole school of Southern politicians went over to the Cal- 
houn dogma as opposed to that of Douglas. But, with 
characteristic vigor, this Senator breathed the breath of 
new life into the ghost of Popular Sovereignty, especially 
because, when the Compromise of 1820 was abandoned, 



27 

some pretext for the annulment of the eighth section of 
that act was necessary. In his celebrated speech on the 
Lecompton Controversy, Douglas said : 

" We repealed the Missouri restriction because that was con- 
fined to slavery. That was the only exception there was to the gen- 
eral principle of self-government. That exception was taken away 
for the avowed and express purpose of making- the rule of self-gov- 
ernment general and universal, so that the people should form and 
regulate all their domestic institutions in their own way." 

Throughout all the ensuing conflict; throughout the 
Lecompton imbroglio; until the mutterings*of civil strife, 
with never abating vigor, Douglas pounded over his pet 
dogma and raised such a din and dust that the minds and 
eyes of one-half of his great party, and of a not inconsid- 
erable number out of other parties, were sadly befuddled 
and beclouded. Resting it on fact enough to make it 
entertainable, the Illinois Senator threw about it the halo 
of his rhetorical sophistn*, and made the most from it pos- 
sible — } T ea, more than was profitable, for it proved too much, 
and, when carried out to its logical extreme, provoked its 
advocate to an eloquent appeal for the preservation of the 
Union. 

To fully know the great powers Douglas had in debate 
— powers of assumption and of construction — the student 
should peruse his Congressional speeches in regard to the 
Kansas-Nebraska Act; and his celebrated Essa} r , published 
in Harper's Monthly Magazine.* In the former, against 
all reason and fact, he struggled to maintain the pre- 
posterous idea that the Kansas-Nebraska Act did not re- 
pudiate the Compromise of 1850, but that it simply an- 
nuled the eighth section of the Missouri Compromise of 
1820. According to his inimitable logic, the conceivers of 
the Missouri Compromise were laboring under a delusion 
as to the constitutional interpretation; as were the framers 
of the Compromise of 1850. The eighth section of the 
former Compromise was in plain violation of the duty of 
Congress to keep clear of the vexatious problem of terri- 
torial government in regard to slavery — so he argued. 
Against the understanding of Wade, and Seward, and 
Chase, and Sumner, representing full}- the anti-slavery 
sentiment at the North; against the understanding of 

* September, 1859. 



28 

Toombs and Stephens at the South; against the tacit agree- 
ment of Atchison and his followers at the West, Doug-las 
boldly raised the claim that he, of all men, understood the 
meaning of the Compromise Measures of 1820. 

In his celebrated debate on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, 
he sought to disprove the idea of the Compromise being a 
compact; continually professed to bring his opponents to 
the point, and invariably deployed all around the point 
himself. The speech may not be reviewed here, but the 
following is submitted as a specimen of the Senator's cool 
assumption in the face of Histor}*, and of recognized un- 
derstanding. Said Douglas : 

"Well, Sir, what is this Missouri Compromise, of which we 
have heard so much of late? It has been read so often that it is not 
necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reading- it again. N It 
was an act of Congress, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, to author- 
ize the people of Missouri to form a Constitution and a state govern- 
ment, preparatory to admission of such state into the Union. The 
first section provided that Missouri should be received into the Union 
'on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatso- 
ever. ' The last and eighth section provided that slavery should be 
'forever prohibited' in all the territories which had been acquired 
from France North of 36 degrees 30 minutes, and not included with- 
in the limits of the State of Missouri. There is nothing in the terms 
of the law that purports to be a compact, or indicates that it was 
anything more than an ordinary act of legislation. To prove that 
it was more than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must pro- 
duce other evidence, and'prove that there was such an understand- 
ing as to create a moral obligation in the nature of a compact. 
Have they shown it?" 

March 6, 1857, the Supreme Court rendered the famous 
Dred Scott decision, and thereby struck Douglas the hard- 
est blow he had yet received. The decision was a virtual 
abrogation of Popular Sovereignty in favor of the doctrine 
of Calhoun. The South was heartily sick of trying Doug- 
las' scheme; She clearly enough saw that the forces of free- 
state civilization were away and beyond those of the slave- 
states, so far as the ability to prepare territories for state- 
hood was concerned — and Eli Thayer's administrative 
acumen doubly discounted the clumsy maneuvers of Atchi- 
son and John Calhoun. Border-Ruffainism and New Eng- 
land Refinement had it out on the plains of Kansas, and it 
was quickly seen that, without the help of a willing and 
powerful Administration, from President down, Border- 



29 

Ruffainism was doomed to certain and ignominious defeat. 

To be fair with its able expounder, the Kansas strug- 
gle was not a true representation of the application of 
Popular Sovereignty — it was the abuse, rather, of the doc- 
trine. Yet, it was the logical outcome of the teachings to 
which Douglas lent himself. In the then existing state of 
affairs, Popular Sovereignty was too tempting a weapon 
to be placed in the hands of an oligarchy which had warped 
Congressional legislation since 1787, to suit its own desires. 

Often, at one and the same time, the Dred Scott de- 
cision is defended as an exposition of law, and condemned 
as an unwarranted avowal of extraneous opinion. There 
can be no doubt that the latter feature of the case, much more 
than any other one, angered the North; this was but nat- 
ural. The brutally, blunt statement of Justice Taney 
that, before the adoption of the Constitution, Africans had 
been considered beings "so far inferior, that the}- had no 
rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that 
the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery 
for his benefit," was easily brought down to mean a pres- 
ent identical putting of the case. But the fact must not be 
lost sight of that the decision was vitally wrong — both as 
to historical and as to legal exposition. 

Chief Justice Taney's holding was : 

(1. That the Declaration of Independence, and the 
Constitution of the United States referred to negroes as 
property only; hence they could not sue nor become citizens; 

(2. That Missouri possessed the right to settle her 
Dred Scott case in the manner she had employed; 

(3. That the United States Constitution recognized 
slaves as property, which it was in dut}' bound to protect; 
and 

(4. That the Missouri Compromise, and like prohibit- 
ory laws were unconstitutional. 

Not only was this a brutal thrust at the rights of hu- 
manity in common, but the cold abrogation of the rights 
of the negro was not based on sound historical fact. Judge 
Taney was aware of this; and hedged in the following 
words : 

[A present application of the words of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence.] "'Would seem to embrace the whole human family. 



30 

But," he continued, " it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved 
African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part 
of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. " 

To this, Justice Curtis, in a dissenting- opinion, paid 
his respects thus : 

"In five of the thirteen original States colored persons then 
possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom 
the Constitution was ordained and established. If so, it is not true, 
in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the 
white race, and that it was made exclusive!)- for the white race is 
in my opinion not only an assumption not warranted by anything 
in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening- declaration that it 
was ordained and established by the people of the United States 
for themselves and their posterity, and as free colored persons were 
"the citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the 
people of the United States, they were among those for whom and 
whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established." 

Plainly, the majority of the Court, and especially the 
Chief Justice, was clearly at fault in its exposition of fact. 

But what is more to our purpose, the doctrine of Con- 
gressional protection of slavery was placed in contradis- 
tinction to that of Doug-las, who declared that it was the 
"intent of Congress not to legislate slavery into a Territory 
or State, nor to exclude it therefrom.' 1 The Court's decision 
was an affirmation of the soundness of Popular Sovereig-nty 
only by half, for it recog-nized the rig-ht of a Territory to 
permit the introduction of slavery, but not to prohibit it. 
The kind of state sovereignty upheld by the decision, was 
the sovereig-nty of the Southern States to demand the pro- 
tection of their " peculiar institution " wherever they chose 
to earn' it. There was but one way in which the cham- 
pion of Popular Sovereig-nty mig-ht ward off this body-blow. 
This way he instantly perceived and employed. In his 
Harper fissay, Doug-las cunning-ly soug-ht to affirm a cor- 
respondence between Popular Sovereig-nty and the spirit of 
the 1 decision by maintaining- that the question of dealing- 
with slavery was not enumerated by the Court in its expo- 
sition of prohibited powers. 

The lang-uag-e of the Court in this respect is explicit. 
It states : 

' ' The power of Congress over the person or property of a citi- 
zen can never be a mere discretionary power under our Constitution 
and form of Government. The powers of the Government and the 



31 

rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined 
by the Constitution itself. And when the Territory becomes a part 
of the United States, the Federal Government enters into possession 
in the character impressed upon it by those who created it. It en- 
ters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and 
limited by the Constitution, from which it derives its own existence, 
and by virtue of which alone it continues to exist and act as a Gov- 
ernment and sovereignty. It has no power of any kind beyond it; 
and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of the United States, put 
off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic powers which 
the Constitution has denied to it. It cannot create for itself a new 
character separated from the citizens of the United States, and the 
duties it owes them under the provisions of the Constitution The 
Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the 
citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with 
their respective rights defined and marked out: and the Federal Gov- 
ernment can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond 
what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it 
has reserved. 

" A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will 
illustrate this proposition. 

" For example, no one. we presume, will contend that Congress 
can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of re- 
ligion, or the free exei"cise thereof, or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory 
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the re- 
dress of grievances. 

"Nor can Congress deny to people the right to keep and bear 
arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a wit- 
ness against himself in a criminal proceeding. 

" These poivers, and others, in relation to rights of persons, 
which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are in express ami posi- 
tive terms, denied to the General Government; and the rights of pri- 
vate property have been guarded with equal care- Thus the rights of 
property are united with the rights of person and placed on the same 
ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that 
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due 
process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the 
I 'nited States of his liberty or property, merely because he came him- 
self or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United 
States, and who had committed no offense against fin taws, could 
hardly hi dignified with tin name of dm process of law. 

'"So. too, it will hardly be contended that CoDgress could by law 
quarter a soldier in a house in a Territory without the consent of 
the owner, in time of peace: nor in time of war. but in a manner pre- 
scribed by law. Nor could tney by law forfeit the property of a 
citizen in a Territory who was convicted of treason, for a longer 
period than the life of the person convicted: nor take private prop- 
erty for public use without just compensation. 

'"The powers over person and property of which we speak are 



32 

not only granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and 
they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not 
confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the 
whole Territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legis- 
late, including those portions of it remaining under Territorial Gov- 
ernment, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence of 
power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and 
places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are con- 
cerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards 
them as fully and plainly against any inroads which the General 
Government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental 
powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this — if it is beyond the 
powers conferred on the Fedral Government— it will be admitted, we 
presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial Government to 
exercise them. It could confer no power on any local Government 
established by its authority, to violate the provisions of the Con- 
stitution." 

[t will be seen that the decision of the Court repudiates 
any idea of Popular Sovereignty so far as the question of 
slavery is concerned. Douglas perceived this also, but with 
characteristic effrontery attempted to warp the mandate of 
the judges into an endorsement of his dogma. When this 
could not be done, he made use of dishonest statements of 
fact; as, for instance, in the Harper Essay where he says: 

•'Some persons, who have not examined critically the opinion of 
the Court in this respect, have been induced to believe that the 
slavery question was included in this class of prohibited powers, and 
that the Court had decided in the Dred Scott case that the ter- 
ritorial Legislature could not legislate in respect to slave property 
the same as all other property in the territories. A few extracts 
from the opinion of the Court will correct this error, and show 
clearly the class of powers to which the Court referred, as being for- 
bidden alike to the Federal government, to the states and to the 
territories." 

From this on, for a few paragraphs, the writer quotes 
from the opinion of the Court in the case where the pro- 
hibited powers are enumerated. In doing so he gives the 
words of the Court in regard to religion; freedom of speech 
and of the press; power to petition; power to keep and 
bear arms; the quartering of soldiery; and the laws of for- 
feiture of property for treason; but very conveniently omits 
that portion which deals with the rights of property — the 
words which the reader finds italicised in the quotation 
given above from the Dred Scott decision. 

Granting the fact that the decision repudiated his pet 



dog-ma, for the sake of argument, Douglas proceeds, in the 
Essay, to carry the reasoning to its logical ends: 

•'If this sweeping- prohibition — this just, but inexorable restric- 
tion upon the powers of government federal, state and terri- 
torial — shall ever be held to include the slavery question, thus neg- 
ativing the rights of the people of the states and territories, as well 
as the federal government, to control it by law (and it will be observed 
that in the opinion of the Court "the citizens of a territory, so far as 
these rights are concerned, are on the same footing with the cil Lzens 
of the states') then, indeed, will the doctrine become fully established 
that the principles of law applicable to African slavery are uniform 
throughout the dominion of tin United States, and that there "is an irre- 
pressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, which 
means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become 
cither entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor 
nation.' " 

As the opinion of the Court in regard to the status of 
the African at the formation of the Constitution was shown 
to be erroneous in fact, so also was it in descanting upon 
the powers of Congress in dealing with the matter of slav- 
ery. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Curtis exposed the 
error of the Court, and made the following statements in 
general thereon: 

"Here are eight distinct instances, beginning with the tirst I 
gress and coming down to the year 1848, in which Congress has ex- 
cluded slavery from the territory of the United States, and sis dis- 
tinct instances in which Congress authorized government of Terri- 
tories by which slavery was recognized and continued, beginning 
also with the first Congress and coming down to the year l v i"_'. 
These acts were severally signed by seven Presidents of the I'nited 
States, beginning with General Washington and coining down as far 
a> Mr. John Quincy Adams, thus including all who were in public life 
when the Constitution was adopted. If the practical construction of 
the Constitution, contemporaneously with its going into effect, by 
men intimately acquainted with its history from their personal 
participation in framing and adopting it, and continued by them 
through a long series of acts of the gravest importance, be entitled 
to weight in the judicial mind on a question of construction, it would 
seem to be difficult to resist the acts above adverted to." 

Hut of all the comments on the Dred Scott decision, by- 
Douglas, perhaps the most significant — certainly so in re- 
gard to him personally — was that which he made in his 
own state, at Springfield, June 12, 1857. In this speech 
he labored, as at other times, to broadly endorse the de- 
cision, and to deny that it came into conflict with his pet 



34 

idea. But for the first time, he boldly enunciated the doc- 
trine of "unfriendly police regulation,"' a dogma which 
accomplished little else than to involve him deeper than 
ever in factional quarrel. 

This monstrous travesty on Constitutional interpreta- 
tion was the creature of a daring mind, but the philosophy 
of its origin is simple. It was absolutely necessarj 7 for 
Douglas to take such ground if he did not care to be repu- 
diated by his own constituency. He hoped a quiet state- 
ment of the doctrine, at Springfield, in 1857, would place 
him right with this constituency ! Did he imagine, that it 
would then be forgotten, and remembered against him no 
more forever? 



Upon Dec. 8, 1857, President Buchanan submitted an 
Annual Message to Congress. In this document he accepted 
the Lecompton Constitution, and indicated that it would 
be the future policy of the Administration. Previously, 
Douglas had protested to the President against such a 
policy, but to no avail. The Administration was bound 
to accede to the wishes of the Calhoun school, and Doug- 
las clearly put himself without his party's pale. But he ■ 
was soon to meet his constituency on the stump, and to se- 
cure their approval was his first task. Accordingly, when 
the Lecompton scheme was presented in Congress, and the 
English bill substituted, he opposed these measures con- 
sistently enough, though with damaging effect upon him- 
self. He saw the logical end of his previous line of rea- 
soning and rebelled. While, without doubt, he was con- 
scientiously opposed to the Lecompton scheme, and to the 
whole method of administrative control of affairs in Kan- 
sas, he was influenced, more or less, by the fact that his 
constituency was dead-set against the whole thing. The 
fate of Shields in 1855 was too dear a lesson to be soon for- 
gotten. Stephen A. Douglas had a certain degree of moral 
bravery which, at times, lifted him above party clap-trap 
and showed him to have possessed the qualities of the 
statesman. These were manifest in his quarrel with the 
Administration, and it is no wonder they won him friends 
and even adherents amongst Free-Soilers and Republicans 



35 

as well. Had not his moral inability to see the difference 
between slavery and freedom been so apparent in the strug- 
gle, it is possible he could have been a much more formid- 
able antagonist in the campaign of 1858. • 

The rupture between the President and the Illinois 
Democracy was now complete. The " Washington Union " 
— the Administration journal — ranted in an espeeiallv bit- 
ter manner, and Douglas, in his Twenty-second-of-March 
Speech, aimed at it blows he intended for authorities be vond. 
In the editorials of this organ, he saw the handiwork of 
the administration itself, and was not afraid so to say. 

It is not the design of this study to give an exhaustive 
account, or even an outline, of the troubles in Kansas, but 
a sketch which will place before the reader the salient 
points of the struggle. 

A large portion of the present state of Kansas was of 
the territory of Louisiana and Missouri previous to 1821. 
After the Compromise of that year, for a third of a century 
it was without territorial organization; it was not until 
1854 that Kansas became organized into a territory by the 
celebrated Kansas-Nebraska bill. This bill repealed the 
Missouri Compromise and left the new territory open to 
slavery or freedom — then began the struggle between the 
forces. Missouri outlaws moved over the border and threat- 
ened free-state men who came across Missouri to the new 
territory. In this manner the pro-slavery men secured the 
first delegate to Congress; in doing so they cast 172') ille- 
gal votes. The election occurred Nov. 2'», 1854. In the 
mean time President Pierce had appointed Andrew H. 
Reeder, of Pennsylvania, to assume the administration of 
affairs in the new territory, and this Governor ordered ;i 
legislative election, to be held March 30, 1855. But so 
great was the influx of free-state men, that the Missouri 
tactics were ag-ain resorted to, and Border Ruffians swarmed 
into the territory the night before election. They alleged 
that the Emigrants' Aid Societies were sending settlers, 
twenty millions strong, to intimidate voters, and thus the 
whole border between the two sections was aroused to an 
intense pitch of enthusiasm. Again fraud triumped, the 
count showing a vote of 5427 for the pro-slavery, and 791 
for the free-state candidates. Of these, 4,')(»S pro-slavery 



36 

votes were subsequently discovered to be illegal. The 
Governor and the pro-slavery men became engaged in 
a desperate quarrel over the matter, and under stress 
of force Reeder issued certificates of election to all but 
one-third of the pro-slavery candidates. The Gov- 
ernor wished to call the territorial legislature together at 
Pawnee, but the legislature was as anxious to meet at 
Shawnee Mission, and did so after the first day of the ses- 
sion; adjourning thither by a vote taken over the Governor's 
veto. This bogus legislature proceeded to make Kansas a 
slave territory ; enacting the Missouri code entirely and 
providing for the support of the system by passing a law 
which challenged every voter to swear to the Fugitive 
Slave Law. In honor of the Chief Justice of the territory, 
Samuel D. LeCompte, who was a willing tool in their hands, 
the legislature named the newly formed capital Lecompton. 
This town, more famous in story than in fact, lay twelve 
miles west of the thriving municipality of Lawrence. In 
the latter town, the free-state men assembled, and decided 
to hold a convention at Big Springs, Sept. 5, 1855. Gov- 
ernor Reeder was present at this convention, and was nom- 
inated, by acclamation, for territorial delegate to Con- 
gress. At the ensuing election he received 2,849 votes. 

The free-state delegates met at Topeka, Oct. 23, and 
framed a state constitution which was submitted to the 
suffrage of the people and received 1731 votes. Accord- 
ingly it was presented to Congress, Mar. 24, 1856; where it 
failed to pass. Douglas, who was Chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Territories in the Senate, rejected it upon the 
ground that " it was the movement of a political party in- 
stead of the whole body of the people of Kansas. ". Nev- 
ertheless, he endorsed the Bogus Laws and legislature in 
their entirety. 

The movements of the free-state men frightened the 
Administration and President Pierce warned them to give 
over. He also removed Reeder and appointed Governor 
Shannon in his stead. Before the next gathering of the 
free-state men at Topeka, July 4, 1856, this second ap- 
pointee to the gubernatorial seat was also obliged to flee 
from the territory. Backed by the authority of and pur- 
suant to the call of the Administration, Federal troops en- 



tered the town and dispersed the provisional legislature. 
The free-state men readily acquiesced. A civil war en- 
sued between the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery forces; 
to quell which, Governor John W. Gerry, of Pennsylvania, 
(who arrived in Kansas, Sept. 9, 1856) bent all his energy. 
He succeeded, in part, but was obliged to relinquish the 
task, and resigned, Mar. 4, 1857. He bitterly complained 
of the lack of support at Washington, and iled after his 
eves were opened to the fact that the Kansas cabal and the 
Administration acted as one man. In the mean time there 
occurred a national election in which President Pierce was 
superseded by James Buchanan. At this time, the Kansas 
trouble was such a stench in the nostrils of the North, that 
the new Administration regarded it with extreme caution. 
Thus far, the pro-slavery men had held out. They 
had compelled the resignation of three Governors, and had 
retained the ardent support of the Administration. But 
they went a trifle too far in the sacking ofOsawatomie and 
Lawrence, two free-state towns. Governors Reeder, Shan- 
non, and Gary had each proceeded to the territory fully of 
the opinion that the pro-slavery men were in the right, 
and looking upon the free-state men as the cause of all the 
disturbance. A few days' residence in the territory and a 
few hours' dealing with the Bogus Laws, and legislature 
revealed to them the true state of affairs, and aroused their 
hostility. Thus the}' were brought under the ban of an 
Administration which appointed them not to subserve jus- 
tice, but to keep in subjection the Topeka "insurgents," 
whether or no. 

■ But the pro-slavery men now began to waver. To 
their minds, it became evident that Kansas could never be 
a slave-state. Still, their brethren, outside the territory, 
were not convinced of the fact, and the Administration 
made one more desperate attempt to subvert the will of the 
people. Robert J. Walker was appointed to the Governor- 
ship. This gentleman, was a resident of Mississippi, and 
had been an able Secretary of the United States Treasury. 
Much against his will he was prevailed upon to assume the 
control of affairs in Kansas, and he undertook the task 
under express agreement that the Administration would 
stand by him in a full and fair trial to obtain a constitution 



38 

which would represent the will of the majority in the ter- 
ritory. Both Douglas and Buchanan professed to be in 
hearty sympathy with the newly appointed Governor, who 
conferred with them and revealed to them his plans before 
entering- upon the duties of his office. Though Governor 
Walker was ardently pro-slavery in sentiment, and hoped 
that Kansas would enter the Union as a slave-state, a few 
days 1 residence in the territory convinced him of his error. 
Nevertheless he manfully set about his task of bringing 
order out of rebellion, and would have succeeded had others 
lived up to the bargain so faithfully as he. 

In the meantime, the pro-slavery party used its oppor- 
tunity to call a convention, which met at Lecompton Nov. 
7. This convention framed a constitution, sanctioning 
slavery in the proposed state, prohibiting the passage of 
emancipation laws by the legislature, and forbidding 
amendments for the length of ten years. Governor Walker 
had assured the free-state voters that the constitution 
should be presented to them for adoption, but this promise 
the convention evaded by submitting to a popular vote 
(Dec. 21) no provision but that which invoked the question 
of slaver^'. The people might vote for the constitution 
with slavery or without slavery, but, in either case, it was 
a travesty on Popular Sovereignt}', as they were not given 
the opportunity of rejecting the constitution itself. The 
free-state men abstained from voting, and the constitution 
received 6,266 votes favorable to slavery as against 567 op- 
posed. Thereupon the legislature again submitted the 
question to the people, this time putting before them the 
whole constitution. The election took place Jan. 4, 1858, 
at which time the constitution was voted down by a major- 
ity of over ten thousand. Congress then took up the issue, 
and the Administration did its utmost to secure the accept- 
ance of the Lecompton constitution. In the Senate the meas- 
ure easily succeeded, but it failed in the House because of 
the deflection of the Douglas Democrats. April 30, 1858, 
Congress substituted the English bill, which offered Kansas 
a land gift if she would accept the Lecompton constitution. 
Aug. 3, the people voted this down by as nearl}- an over- 
whelming majority as they had recorded against the orig- 
inal Lecompton constitution in the preceding January. 



39 

Thus the people of Kansas had shown themselves too 
resolute to be intimidated by either the Border Ruffians or 
by a pro-slavery Administration; too brave to be su< 
fully bribed by Congress; and freedom-loving- enough to 
wait until their population should be sufficient to admit 
them as a free-state. Thus, four territorial Governors 
were basely deserted by the Administration, and Stephen 
A. Doug-las had defeated the success of the Lecompton 
measure in Congress. Democracy split in twain, and the 
battle was transferred from the plains of Kansas, and the 
halls of Congress to the prairie towns of Illinois. 



I=»^-IST II. 

Xincoln in tbe Struggle for tbe Iftnion. 



In a speech delivered at Chicago, Friday evening - , July 
9, 1858, Senator Douglas defended his anti-Lecompton at- 
titude and took occasion to characterize his greatest poli- 
tical opponent in the words : 

"I have observed from the public prints, that but a few days 
ago the Republican party of the State of Illinois assembled in con- 
vention at Spring-field, and not only laid down their platform, but 
nominated a candidate for the United States Senate, as my successor. 
I take great pleasure in saying that I have known, personally and 
intimately, for about a quarter of a century, the worthy gentleman 
who has been nominated for my place, and I will say that I regard 
him as a kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen, 
and an honorable opponent; and whatever issue I may have with 
him will be of principle, and not involving personalities." 

Of the man thus mildly complimented, it now becomes 
our duty to speak. 

Physically, Abraham Lincoln was one of the most 
striking characters of his day. Not only was he tall, and 
awkward, but, in general bodily make-up he was deceiv- 
ing. Because of inordinate length of leg, he appeared 
taller when standing than one supposed him to be when 
one observed him seated. His hands and feet were large; 
the latter abnormally so. His countenance was peculiar. 
The retreating forehead was crowned with a shock of black, 
unruly hair; the broad, smoothly shaven chin defined a 
bold up-curve; the large, firm mouth bore lips thick enough 
to be full of feeling; while the prominent nose betokened 
characteristics of intelligent leadership; and the small, 
gray eyes, set far under shaggy brows, seemed to pierce 
to one's very soul. When spoken with, or addressing 



41 

others, a kindly smile lighted the plain, sad face, and every 
feature changed. Humor played on the mouth and in the 
facial lines, the eyes flashed in their cavernous sockets, 
and an air of intense interest, and sympathy, livened the 
whole countenance. If the face in repose was interesting - , 
nothing- short of fascination was aroused by its changes 
under the controlling moods of mind and soul. 

In personal magnetism, he fell short of the attain- 
ments of his noted rival. Stephen A. Douglas courted 
popularity and won it. He got it from utter strangers, 
and none could set a crowd to cheering more wildly than 
he. It was otherwise with Lincoln. Not that he was in- 
different to public opinion of himself, for he was anxious 
on this score, but his popularity was strongest amongst 
those who knew him best. In demeanor at times, he was 
repellent. He did not offend, but he held off at arm's 
length. Yet, none was more cordial than he, and it was 
his dual nature which presented him differently to differ- 
ent people, then as well as later in his career. Without 
seeming to realize it, he bore an individualistic carriage 
and habit which strangely and strongly impressed every 
one with whom he had to do. 

When he emerged from comparative private life, in 
1858, to respond to the call of the Illinois state Senatorial 
convention. Lincoln surprised his friends and startled his 
adversaries by the most remarkable speech he had ever 
made. No' other effort so noteworthy was evolved from 
the anti-Nebraska struggle. Indeed, so far back as 1855, 
during the Trumbull campaign, in a speech full of elo- 
quence and feeling, he smote hip and thigh, those who 
were involving the Nation in turmoil. If previously he 
had been indifferent to the true condition of affairs; if he 
had been contented with making partisan pleas for Harri- 
son, and Taylor, and Scott, or with satirizing Cass in Con- 
gress, all this unconcern was thrown aside by 1855, and 
there appeared before the Illinois constituency a real 
"giant," who was aroused by the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise as by a trumpet in the night. Tradition, 
only, preserves most of the words spoken in the legislative 
contest which preceded the election of Trumbull; but 
Herndon indellibly impresses the effect of the speech deliv- 



42 

ered at Spring-field, in October, 1854.* As now, so 
then diverse estimates of the man were not only con- 
sistent, they were inevitable. There was the super- 
ficial view which regarded most his eccentricities. 
This view was held by many old neighbors who recalled 
his yarns, and the traditions of his early life; the accounts 
of his skill at woodchopping or his feats in the ring - . Such 
as remembered little of him but his tales on the circuit, or 
his quaintness in conducting - a trial looked to the coming 
contest (if indeed they looked at all) as a promise of rare 
stump-fun and of story-telling - politics. The thought of 
their ignorance concerning the man never disturbed their 
minds, and they were ever ready to account for his rise 
with the simple though indolent philosophy, which is 
summed up in the remark of one of them: "Well, Abe 
was always the luckiest dog on earth, anyhow !" 

There was another class of men who knew Lincoln 
better. These were his associates who had the opportu- 
nity of closely observing him, and the good sense to study 
his character more or less critically. To this class belonged 
N. B. Judd, David Davis, Lyman Trumbull, Wm. H. Hern- 
don and others like them. It is not to be presumed they 
came anywhere near a just comprehension of his ability, 
but they came the nearest of any; near enough to realize 
him to be the man in the approaching contest. To them 
this contest was vital. Not only was Douglas a danger- 
ous man in his party, but out of it as well, and so subtle 
was his sophistry no ordinary opponent might disclose it. 
Thus, by force of fitness Lincoln stepped forward to assume 
the task which thinking men unhesitatingly accorded him. 
Hardly did they; indeed, hardly did Lincoln, give full 
credit to the philosophy of this fitness, yet it lay there 
deep, sure, and unmistakable. His was no tender genius 
which shrank from uncouth surroundings. On the con- 
trary, such condition caused it to thrive more heartily, for 
Lincoln possessed the rare faculty of selecting the best 
from every circumstance in life. The world has gotten the 
idea that his was an uncrowned head to which the Ameri- 
can people had to turn in dire distress; but he was no god, 
descended from the cerulean height. If his consummate 

* See Life of Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 36-38. 



43 

ability gave him the right to it, no less did the genius of 
thorough preparation bring- him to the task of conducting 
this Nation through the supreme crisis of her life. 

If it may be considered that the conflict between Shiv- 
ery and Freedom, between Anarchy and Union began long 
before the guns of Sumter aroused the Nation; that it had its 
inception with the birth of the Union, or even before, it 
may be assumed, as well, that the peculiar fate which 
transferred the struggle from Congress to Kansas, and 
from Kansas to Illinois, was not blind chance; nor was it 
mere fatalism that singled out the Whig leader of the state 
to successfully challenge the champion of that subtle kind of 
pro-slavery argument which needed to be divested of its 
dangerous influence before the consummation of the eon- 
test could be entered upon. To meet the problem a sort of 
training, and a kind of personal character were necessary, 
which are always rare in their union. Moreover, the work- 
before him who was to conquer Douglas was of such a na- 
ture that it could have been prepared for only through 
years of experience and toil. Not only was character of a 
certain quality necessary, but prestige also. This charac- 
ter and this prestige, Abraham Lincoln possessed. 

In the work before him, two things were essential and 
several were extremely helpful. The necessary things 
were : a shrewd mastery of politics, and moral bravery. 
The helpful things were : a wholesome vein of humor, 
and extraordinary gifts of oratory. The careful student 
cannot fail to notice that these very elements were dis- 
played by Lincoln through his entire life, and that their 
intelligent cultivation was the same mysterious talisman 
which carried him safely beyond the demoralizing influ- 
ences of backwood's association, and through the labyrinth 
of disloyal sophism. 

Lincoln was a born story-teller. Among-st a race of 
story-tellers, he was chief. He appropriated the kernel of 
a good yarn and saw its availability upon the instant. 
Not only did this habit arise from a natural taste for the 
ludicrous, but also from keen powers of observation. 
Though he had the genius of humor, in its use he was not 
so constructive as he was adoptive, for in him the instinct 
of juxtaposition was strong. Moreover his humor was 



44 

clear and powerful. His speech in Congress against Gen. 
Cass rivals the effort of Tom Corwin against "the late 
lamented Mr. Crary, of Michigan." It is a fair specimen 
of good natured sarcasm, chiefly valuable as compared with 
his later sallies. 

The quaintness of Lincoln's humor was of the quality 
which lends great prestige to its possessor, and which is 
apt to bring his memory into danger of an exaggerated 
traditional judgment, but it was of eminent service to the 
young Illinois lawyer who met all classes of the sovereign 
people on his legal circuits. He could indulge in humor 
before a jury with very dangerous results to his adversaries. , 
The opposing lawyers were in a continual fret lest some 
rich sarcasm or witty illustration should thwart their pains- 
taking efforts. There was no way of forseeing the comi- 
cal gravity and shrewd thrust which would often convulse 
judge and jury. In this field he ranged unchallenged, and 
many a winter's night rang with the laughter of those who 
were privileged to gather about the grocery stove and re- 
hearse the inimitable sallies of "Abe" Lincoln. 

As to the quality of Lincoln's jokes, the}' were always 
rich and often racy. He did not seem to possess an) 7 sense 
of propriety other than that of application. But, it may 
honestly be presumed that he did not indulge in broad stories 
from innate taste for the vulgar. .If a joke had point, it 
mattered little to him about its setting — but he knew how 
to rebuke a story wantonly coarse. 

Lincoln's ability as a story-teller won him friends 
everywhere. It was a most natural thing for one of those 
unlettered, but shrewd, jurymen to carry the impression of 
the man back to his home, there to dilate upon his affabil- 
ity and humor, thus enhancing the lawyer's reputation for 
brains and hard sense. Not only did this characteristic 
win Lincoln friends, it also taught him to read human na- 
ture. To such a man the hearty country-folk opened their 
minds. He could get near to their desires and understand 
their needs. His kindness and geniality were not sugges- 
tive of ulterior motives. 

Douglas lacked a sense of the humorous, and though 
his hold on the people was great, it was different. By 
dint of energy he worked his way, and by a brilliant show 



45 

of ability maintained his hold upon his constituency. 
Though a formidable antagonist, he could not successfully 
cope with his opponent in the use of humor upon the stump, 
for with great effect in a campaign, Lincoln employed this 
ability. His law practice taught him the use of wit as a 
weapon, and the rostrum gave him a broader field in which 
to wield it. In its use he could be merciless. But he was 
balanced. A rare, good nature kept him sweet-tempered, 
even when misquoted in a despicable manner. 

He often transcended the bounds of humor and became 
witt} T , but his wit served a deeper purpose. Even in rep- 
artee he was logical, and in the use of the red actio ad ab- 
surd 'it m he displayed unusual skill, so that he appealed at 
once to the risibilities and to the understanding of his 
hearers. 

Lincoln was an orator. His oratory was true because 
he possessed great tenderness of heart. An intelligent 
sympathy enabled him to perceive, and to respond to stir- 
ring sentiments wherever manifested. Being an orator, 
he was strangely susceptible of the oratory of others. On 
Feb. 2, 1848, while in Congress, he wrote the following 
letter to his partner, Herndon : 
" Dear William : 

"I just take up my pen to say that Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, 
a little, slim, pale-faced, consumptive man, with a voice like Logan's, 
has just concluded the very best speech of an hour's length I ever 
heard. My old, withered, dry eyes are full of tears yet. If he 
writes it out anything like he delivered it our people shall see a 
great many copies of it." 

Like those of most young men, Lincoln's first attempts 
at speech-making were somewhat turgid, but early in his 
career this defect dropped away, and he came to realize, 
as does any true orator, that language is but a vehicle. 

An orator is such not because of his words. He is such 
from the occasion and his connection therewith. Geo. W. 
Curtis mentions three consummate orations in American 
History; the orators are Patrick Henry, Wendell Phillips, 
and Abraham Lincoln; the occasions, the meeting of the 
Virginia Assembly, the mass gathering at Fanuel Hall, 
and the dedication at Gettysburg. Thus, Lincoln showed 
his ability as an orator only when aroused by the require- 
ments of circumstance. It is significant that he succeeded 



46 

at no other time. When mere office was at stake he 
was an indifferent campaigner. He once made such a 
miserable failure in a speech advocating- the candidacy 
of Harrison that the committee retained him i more 
from sympathy than from the hope of effective work. In 
this campaign he was afterward more successful, but it 
was in the defense of -principles. The celebrated acquittal 
of Armstrong affords an instance of his ability when con- 
vinced of the justice of a cause. 

But it is only after the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise that the student discovers an unusual depth and 
power in his speeches. It is certain he surprised as well as 
charmed his friends when he made the remarkable speech 
at Springfield in the legislative canvass of 1854. 

Lincoln's powers of analysis displayed him at his best 
when engaged in philosophical or ethical discussions. 
Usually abstract principles are not handled so skillfull}' as 
he was to handle the issues involved in the Douglas de- 
hates. It was to become noticeable that the people ap- 
plauded Douglas more, but listened to Lincoln better. 

Acting on the principle alluded to he never relied on 
the force of mere language, nor did he employ it for the 
sake of cloaking conviction. Of his language, whatever 
ma}' have been its intrinsic excellencies (and they were 
many), its power lay in the fact that it corresponded to his 
ideas. Thus, a comparative study of his speeches from the 
first crude effort at Pappsville, in 1832, to the masterly 
presentation of issues in the House-divided-against-itself 
Speech of 1858, discloses much of the growth of the man. 
A significant biography might be written with few data 
other than his letters and orations. 

The selection of Lincoln to meet the "Little Giant " 
in the campaign of 1858, is one of those acts which lucidly 
illustrate the law of the "eternal fitness of things." 
"While it was done under the knowledge that no other man 
could be as successful, subsequent history has shown it to 
have been an act of consummate wisdom. 

He was the ideal exponent of anti-slavery thought. 
Comparatively few would have admitted this in 1858, but it 
soon became clear enough. The dangers to be feared from 
anti-slavery speakers were the ones he shunned. Nothing 



47 

is more natural in men whose hearts are on fire, than de- 
nunciation and abusive arraignment. Nothing- is more 
common with them than distorted presentations of the 
tenets of an adversary. Even without the "holier-than- 
thou " spirit, so common in moral agitation, one who 
throws one's whole soul into a conflict, is in danger of 
becoming uncharitable because of the tendency to view all 
thing's at a single angle. But, in such conflicts, a deal 
depends upon winning the class whose hearts are suscepti- 
ble of the influence oi reason rather than of passion. It is 
easy for men to think themselves candid, and yet to be un- 
truthful. Not only did these facts appeal to the philosophic 
mind of Abraham Lincoln, but he felt himself to be the 
man who could successfully avoid committing' the errors 
they involve. This confidence led him before the people, 
the best prepared champion of freedom and the Union. 

But he was to prove his worth, for, in public debate, 
the first impressions concerning him were almost certain 
to be the wrong ones. In repose, the disjointed figure, 
the sallow, angular face, the clums} 7 gestures were not pre- 
possessing, and during the opening- moments of a speech his 
voice, piercing- and strident, seemed to display lack of 
culture. But all this soon changed. The eyes flashed, 
the gestures became singularly appropriate, and the voice 
assumed a tone of earnest sadness. By the subtle law of 
correspondence, these changes served to more deeply fix 
his words. 

Mr. Horace White, who witnessed the effort at Spring- 
field, Oct., 1854, says : 

•' All strings that play upon the human heart and understand- 
ing were touched with masterly skill and force, while beyond and 
above all skill was the overwhelming - conviction pressed upon the 
audience that the speaker himself was charged with an irresistible 
and inspiring duty to his fellow-men. This conscientious impulse 
drove his arguments through the heads of his hearers down into 
their bosoms, where they made everlasting lodgment." 

Again, Mr. White says : 

" Although I heard him many times afterward I shall longest 
remember him as I then saw the tall, angular form with the long, an- 
gular arms, at times bent nearly double with excitement, like a large 
flail animating two smaller ones; the mobile face wet with perspir- 
ation which he discharged in drops as he threw his head this way 



48 

and that like a projectile— not a graceful fig-tire, yet not an ungrace- 
ful one. After listening to him a few minutes, when he had got 
well warmed with his subject, nobody would mind w T hether he was 
graceful or not. All thought of grace or form would be lost in the 
exceeding attractiveness of what he was saying."* 

The student in his audience would not be long- in dis- 
covering- where the power of the speaker lay, and 
though his opinions were hostile, could not help feeling 
the influence of this power. 

The first impression his words conveyed was that 
of candor. Says one who, as an unsympathetic reporter, 
went to one of his speeches, in acknowledgment of this 
power : 

" Nobody who heard him could have questioned for a moment 
his absolute sincerity, the complete truthfulness of the man." f 

Not only was he truthful ; he was fair. The habit of 
years prominent in his law practice asserted itself upon the 
stump. He was so fair that the greater portion of his 
speech would win even the foes in his audience. It was 
the clinching of his two or three points which taxed their 
consciences and minds. Lincoln got this training in his 
law practice as he studied the " twelve good men and 
true" who sat before him. Often his client thought him 
to be giving his case away only to be astounded at the 
logic of the closing- remarks which generally brought the 
-jury to the speaker's way of thinking. Of course such a 
man would be misunderstood by the Abolitionists, but the 
task was to undermine the constituenc}' ol Douglas — the 
Abolitionists could take care of themselves. 

Not only was he fair ; he was comprehensive. This 
was due to his minute preparation. For years he had cog- 
itated over the issues involved in the struggle concerning 
slavery. He had viewed them in every light. Rejecting- the 
guidance of mere feeling, he was not satisfied until his reason 
attested the truthfulness of a proposition. His honesty of 
thought was severe. Consequently when he appealed to 
an audience not only was he lucid but convincing as well. 
Men felt that the impulses of the politician were overcome 
by an effort to get at the truth of things, and to compre- 
hend them in their every phase. 

The oratory of Lincoln, in its nature, bore the stamp 
of the greatest school known to man — that of e very-day 

*See Herndon's Life of Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 91-92. 
^Junius Henri Browne; statement, Feb. 12, 1895. 



49 

life. Through contact with men of every class and of all 
dispositions, it had become rounded and pointed. By the 
severest mental drill, and by the force of merciless intro- 
spection it had become deepened and broadened. It was 
vibrant with the warmth of human tenderness and with a 
passionate love of justice. It was tried oratory. Through 
nearly two score years it had passed in its development, 
and it had learned to discard the extraneous. It was not 
s}'cophantic ; neither was it illiberal. It was manly ; it 
was shrewd ; it was convincing - . In two consummate 
instances it was destined to reach the high-water mark of 
a particular kind of human expression. 

In this as in no other nation, the politician wields the 
masses. Once let the people get the idea that he is one of 
them, and his success is apt to be brilliant. There seems 
to be an inherent tendency to trust this individual until he 
proves himself unworthy. He may be as educated and re- 
fined as he choose ; his hold upon his constituents is en- 
hanced thereby provided he grow not away from them.* 

The American people are intrinsically political. No 
one understood this better than did Lincoln. Not only 
was he a friend-getter ; he was a friend-keeper. This 
helped him to the leadership of his part}' in Illinois, and 
made him candidate for speaker of the legislature — jean 
suit, backwoods style and ail. 

It also opened the wa}' for his ascendency which lasted 
for thirty years, until his state put him forth as the rep- 
resentative man of the Nation. Had he been of the domi- 
nant party, there can be no question of the honors which a 
willing people would have heaped upon him — probably he 
might have been smothered in honors. But his success is 
the evidence of his preparation. 

In the small things of political life he was learned. 
No man kept his ear closer to the ground, and none swept 
his eye more comprehensively over the horizon. He was 
quiet, but it was the silence of observation. He was cal- 
culating and knew the trend of things at any given mo- 
ment. That he was quick to measure the extent of deflec- 
tions, and accurate in his judgment of their effect is shown 
by his letters and conversations — a good example may be 

*See von Hoist. Const. Hist, of U. S. 



50 

found in the letter he wrote to Harrison Maltby during - the 
Freemont campaign.* 

Lincoln was a wire-puller. He knew human nature 
and laid in a stock of shrewd wisdom with which to 
handle it. Later on the people were to discover this trait, 
but some few were aware of it by 1858. November 27, 
1854, this letter was sent to a friend : 

" T. J. Henderson, Esq., 

" My Dear Sir : — It has come 'round that a Whig- may, by 
possibility, be elected to the United States Senate ; and I want the 
chance of being the man. You are a member of the legislature, 
and have a vote to give. Think it over and see whether jon can do 
better than go for me. Write me, at all events, and let this be con- 
fidential." 

In a letter to the Hon. E. B. Washburne, written from 
Spring-field, January 6, 1855, Lincoln displays the keen 
knowledge of men and their actions which belongs to the 
consummate politician. In it he says that he knew Mr. 
Washburne's district probably better than did that gentle- 
man himself — for he names this man and that man, " Dr. 
Little," and " Rev. Mr. Lawrence," "Judg-e Parks," and 
"Old Mr. Diggins ; " speculating on their choice, either 
upon the first ballot or succeeding ones. A careful recapit- 
ulation of the legislature is made ; it being- divided in- 
to those who are anti-Nebraska, and those who are the 
regular Nebraska men. One is shown to be missing ; an 
explanation is offered for the then recent loss of Sang-a- 
mon to the Whigs, and the whole thing is gotten up as 
could have been done by no one versed in anything- less 
than the intricacies of township politics. 

These are the arts of the politician pure and simple. 
Though they display much sagacity and hard common 
sense, they are usually wrought on a depressed plain, and 
when unaccompanied by higher motives sink their employ- 
er to the mere level of the professional politician. It was 
not possible for such a man as Lincoln to be long satisfied 
with such attainments, and when the change came, it was 
rapid and sure. After 1854 it became evident that he was 
possessed of a broader vision than ever before in matters 
political. Then began to dawn upon him the consequences 
of Douglas' false teachings. Because he saw more clearly 
than others the results of the repeal of the Missouri 



¥ See Lincoln's Works, Vol. I, page 221. 



51 

Compromise, he assumed his duty before the people in ex- 
posing- this monstrous fraud. 

Consequently, in his speeches from 1854 on, the stu- 
dent finds something- deeper, more comprehensive, than in 
any delivered previously. Thenceforth it almost seems 
that Lincoln were a new man. He was a new man. 

The thrilling speech he gave at Springfield in 1S54 
was delivered under the spell of a new birth into a larger 
political world. For the first time there was unfolded to 
him the meaning of the great conflict he was starting into. 
His growth never ceased. 

The House-divided-against-itself Speech marks an 
epoch. It is the true barometer of the political atmosphere 
of the time. Seemingly, it Was an act of blundering stu- 
piditv; and the question frequently arises; " Had he a right 
to so endanger the chances of his party in the ensuing 
campaign?" Unquestionably he had, seeing the effect 
meant more to himself than to anyone else. But it 
cannot be granted that it was poor policy, even. Lincoln 
was the acknowledged leader of his party in the state, and 
was the best exponent of the political change then being 
wrought — had weighed matters well, and knew the philos- 
phy of things. Moreover, he was close to the people, and 
reflected their minds. With him, as with them, it was a 
conflict for principle, and the mere politician sank from 
sight in the seeker after truth. True, the proceeding was 
in strange contrast with Lincoln's accepted reputation in 
such matters, but it goes to show that he was a politician of 
the greatest and strongest type. The best vindication of his 
actions has been made — the testimony of } T ears to their 
wisdom and exalted character. 

But Lincoln was to meet a man who ranked as king 
among the politicians of his time. All the arts of the dem- 
agogue were to be given full play. No loop-hole could be 
passed without testing; no sophistical doctrine could be 
hidden under seemingly good logic without exposition, 
provided the Republicans were to be winners in the battle. 
The selection of Abraham Lincoln to meet Mr. Douglas is 
evidence enough of his reputation as a politician, shrewd 
and knotty; and a study of the debates will fully justify 
the wisdom of the choice. 



52 

No amount of political sagacity can save a man who 
lacks moral bravery. In time of prosperity he may ride 
the popular wave, but, in time of adversity, he is certain 
to be overwhelmed. Lincoln's statement that though on 
the field of battle he might be the first to run, he believed 
he did not know what moral fear was, must be taken liter- 
ally. He was incapable of a wantonly unfair or immoral 
act. Nor was this the result of anything other than a pe- 
culiar habit of temperament. It arose from his judicial 
ways of thought. Still it is helpful to reflect that though 
in his early days he was surrounded by men far from virt- 
uous, no unclean personal habits attached themselves to 
him. It is an evidence of natural desire for purity that he 
never learned the use of tobacco or liquor. Sa} r s Lincoln's 
most privileged critic: * "His conscience was ruled by 
one faculty —reason' His heart was ruled by two faculties 
— reason and conscience." His habit of refusing law cases 
which involved inconsistencies, arose from his bravery of 
character, as well as incapacity for such work. He had 
no willingness to prosecute such cases. His bravery of 
character was of the kind which brooked no iota of deceit 
— either of himself or others. Hence, in the pursuit of a 
logical end he was merciless. Truth alone brought any 
satisfaction to his mind. His great power over his hearers 
was due to a keen analysis of the subject he had in hand, 
but back of this analysis lay the untiring quest after truth 
and the inflexible honesty of purpose. He never learned 
the truth that he might juggle it, as some others did. 
When necessary he was not afraid to expound it, leaving it 
to impress its own worth and to do its own work. When 
satisfied as to principles, and upon seeing them put into 
operation, he did not become impatient. At such times he 
manifested rare capacity for waiting. 

Lincoln's moral bravery was the thing which lifted 
him from his early surroundings. The bitterness of his 
abject poverty was not enough to overcome his decision of 
character. Before him there was always something better 
to be attained. Some phases of his early life may seem to 
contradict this, but beyond question an untiring ambition 
to make something of himself was ever a motive in him. 
Not only was he brave with himself; in the prosecu- 

*Herndon. 



53 

tion of duty he was fearless before others, and had a cer- 
tain spirit of frank independence withal. His first politi- 
cal speech shows this. In a previous circular, addressed 
to the voters of Sangamon,* he had said, after soliciting 
their support at the polls: "But if the good people in 
their wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the background, I 
have been too familiar with disappointments to be very 
much chagrined. 1 ' 

The struggle from 1854 on had put a premium upon 
moral bravery in politics. The political party which 
cajoled the people into accepting the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, and led them into the election of Buchanan, went a 
trifle too far in demanding of them acquiescence in the 
Lecompton outrage. None knew this better than the two 
men who stood before the country, in Illinois, during the 
memorable campaign of 1858. But one of them could look 
back upon a record marred by political inconsistency. He 
had spoken of the Missouri Compromise as " a sacred thing 
which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to 
disturb," 1 and had then thrust forward his own fist, smit- 
ing the "sacred thing" he once canonized. He had 
labored to deceive himself into thinking there was no dif- 
ference between that Compromise and his Kansas-Nebraska 
bill ; that no constitutional right was violated by his pet 
scheme. He had acknowledged the Dred Scott decision to 
be just, deprecating the attempts of "the partisan leaders 
to array them (the people) in violent resistance to the final 
decision of the highest judicial tribunal on earth,"' and had 
himself, in the face of that decision, promulgated his 
"monstrous" doctrine of "unfriendly legislation/' He 
had sprung from a state as truly anti-slavery as any in the 
Union, yet he had no moral compunctions on the question 
of slavery. 

On the other hand, his opponent had been consistent 
in the eyes of the people of his state. As a young legisla- 
tor he became involved in the vast schemes for " improve- 
ment." which characterized the early settlers of the West. 
His ambition was to be called the ' DeWitt Clinton of 111- 
inois't — but it was a dream, the error of which he ac- 
knowledged, and he did not seek to have the state repudiate 
its debt. 



*See Lincoln's Works, Vol. i, p. i. 
tLincoln to Joshua F. Speed, about 1836. 



54 

More than was usual with men in those days he was 
consistent in his attitude upon the slavery question. As a 
member of Congress he opposed the opening- of the Mexi- 
can war, though it was an unpopular stand for him to take, 
and he was the only Whig representative from Illinois. 
When the war was initiated, however, he would not vote 
to withhold supplies from the troops; but he never admitted 
the justice of the struggle. His attitude upon the question 
of slave-holding was freely known. He had the pleasure 
of voting for the Wilmot proviso some forty times, and he 
fathered a bill in Congress for the Abolition of slavery in 
the District of Columbia which was so fair that it com- 
manded the support of both anti and pro-slavery men. 

Two consummate instances in his career had proven 
his moral bravery in the face of political opposition. 
Though optimistic, the Lincoln-Stone Protest was not 
recklessness, but pure bravery. At the time he was look- 
ing forward to large political preferment, had no powerful 
political friends, and was obliged to hew every step of his 
path. 

The second instance was that of his attitude in the 
Lincoln-Trumbull Campaign, in 1854. It has been seen 
how eager he was for the distinction. Admirers are wont 
to exalt his magnanimity in throwing the election to Trum- 
bull. It was a brave thing, to be sure, but it was neces- 
sary. He knew the alternative was the choice of Matte- 
son and he could not hesitate a moment in making his pre- 
ference tell. The bravest thing the student has to note at 
this time in Lincoln's life is the bold stand he took for 
principle. Recalling what it meant to protest against the 
imperious rule of the slave-oligarch}- even as late as 1856, 
we can appreciate the courage he showed when he addressed 
the meeting called at Springfield to ratify the action of the 
Bloomington Convention. Only three had the temerity to 
attend, and Lincoln was one. Let not these words spoken 
there be forgotten : 

"While all seems dead the age itself is not. It liveth as sure 
as our Maker liveth. Under all this seeming- want of life and mo- 
tion, the world does move nevertheless. Be hopeful and now let us 
adjourn and appeal to the country." 

But before 1856 he had spoken as bravely. In the 
campaign of 1854 he said, at Peoria : 



55 

" This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real 
zeal, for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because 
of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it de- 
prives our republican example of its just influence in the world; en- 
ables the enemies of free institutions with plausibility to taunt us 
as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sin- 
cerity; and especially because it forces so many good men among 
ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of 
civil liberty, criticising the Declaration of Independence, and in- 
sisting that there is no right principle of action but self- 
interest. * * * 

" "When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible 
for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When 
it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to 
get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreci- 
ate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I 
should not know how to do myself. 

"When they remind us of their constitutional rights. I ac- 
knowledge them — not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would 
give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which 
should not in its stringency be more likely to carry a free man into 
slavery than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent 
man. * * , * 

" Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its restoration, 
lest they be thrown in company with the Abolitionists. Will they 
allow me as an old Whig, to tell them, good-humoredly, that I think 
this is very silly. Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand 
with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. 
Stand with the Abolitionist in restoring the Missouri Compromise, 
and stand against him when he attempts to repeal the fugitive-slave 
law. In the latter case you stand with the Southern disunionist. 
What of that? You are still right. In both cases you are right. 
In both cases you expose the dangerous extremes. In both you 
stand on middle ground, and hold the ship level and steady. In both 
3 r ou are national, and nothing less than national. This is the good 
old Whig ground. To desert such ground because of any com- 
pany, is to be less than a Whig — less than a man — less than an 
American. * * * 

''In the course of my main argument, Judge Douglas inter 
rupted me to say that the principle of the Nebraska bill was very 
old; that it originated when God made man, and placed good and 
evil before him, allowing him to choose for himself, being responsi- 
ble for the choice he should make. At the time I thought this was 
merely playful, and I answered it accordingly. But in his reply to 
me he renewed it as a serious argument. In seriousness, then, the 
facts of this proposition are not true as stated. God did not place 
good and evil before man, telling him to make his choice. On the 
contrary, he did tell him there was one tree of the fuit of which he 
should not eat, under pain of certain death. I should scarcely wish 
so strong a prohibition against slavery in Nebraska." 



56 

Such were the qualifications of the man called upon 
by the common consent of his party to meet the great ex- 
pounder of Popular Sovereignty. The struggle in Kansas 
had introduced a new phase of the subject. Men saw it 
was not to be a conflict between two doctrines, solely, but 
began to think the life of the Union was in imminent dan- 
ger. Before them Border Warfare and a recreant Admin- 
istration were taking part in incipient rebellion, which was 
not to be confined to the plains of Kansas alone, but which 
was to spread along the whole border between North and 
South; wherever free-state and slave-state opinion could 
come in conflict. Hence the ensuing speeches were parts of 
no mere forensic struggle worked out before the people of Ill- 
inois and of the Nation. They were evolved during a con- 
test wrought in the breathless interest of a people who had 
not come up to the understanding of but vaguely forboded 
Harper's Ferry and Sumter. 

We, of to-day, ma}' look back in complacency upon the 
scene, but, in the audience before Lincoln and Douglas, 
stood men with bated breath and clenched fists, who could 
not forget that, only yesterday, the powerful Federal Gov- 
ernment had sent its troops into the town of Topeka to 
blow into pieces the representatives of the rightful major- 
ity of the territory the moment those representatives 
should dare to formulate the will of the people into consti- 
tutional expression. Deep in the hearts of the free-state 
men, setting them aflame, were the words of Jackson: 
"The Union; it must and shall be preserved." The in- 
stinctive query rose to their lips : "It shall be, but how?" 



The campaign proper, of 1858, opened with the speech 
Lincoln delivered at Springfield, on the evening of June 
17th. This speech was carefully prepared, and submitted 
to the judgment of his friends. With a single exception 
they condemned it as unwise. However much the} r hap- 
pened to agree with its sentiment, the} r were of the firm be- 
lief that it was a foolhardy attempt at raising an issue which 
would better have been approached cautiously, if indeed, at 
all. Especially unfortunate the}^ considered the opening 
portion. One of Lincoln's warm friends afterwards stated 



57 

that the first ten lines of the speech defeated its author in 
the immediate election. But Lincoln was decided. Politic 
or not, he conceived it was time the truth should be 
spoken. His comment is interesting : 

" Friends, I have thought about this matter a great deal, have 
weighed the question well from all corners, and am thoroughly con- 
vinced the time has come when it should be uttered ; and if it must 
be that I must go down because of this speech, then let me jg-o down 
linked to truth —die in the advocacy of what is right and just. This 
nation cannot live on injustice, — ' a house divided against itself 
cannot stand,' I say again and again." 

Subsequent events settled the question of policy. Says 
Lamon : " Mr. Lincoln never penned words which had 
more prodigious influence upon the public mind, or which 
more directly and powerfully affected his own career." 

The speech is remarkable in that it displa}*s a spirit 
of aggressiveness unusual upon the part of Lincoln, who was 
constitutionally conservative. For this reason, it is not a 
matter of surprise that his intimate political associates de- 
precated the effort. Public opinion at the North was not 
up to the high standard set in the Springfield speech, and 
had Lincoln been so widely known, his " house-divided- 
against-itself " sentiment would have been as unfortunate 
for him as was the "irrepressible conflict" doctrine of 
Seward. 

Nevertheless, a calm, dispassionate study of succeed- 
ing events fully justifies the Springfield speech. Though 
the people of the North thought they were not ready for 
its seeming radicalism, it was time they were getting 
ready, and the speaker knew them even better than they 
knew themselves. It opened their eyes to facts they had 
not weighed. Its lucid exposition of the designs of pro- 
slavery men was unanswerable, and Douglas replied to it 
only by distorting its thought and language. 

The emphasis of the co-relation of Congress in passing 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, of the Supreme Court, in the 
Dred Scott decision, and of the people in electing Buchan- 
an, was putting things in a novel light. But it was not 
less novel than effective. Though he tried it afterward, 
Douglas never succeeded in satisfactorily refuting the 
charge of coalition. Lincoln's definition of Douglas' prin- 
ciple of " squatter soverignty " was apt. He said the logical 



58 

intent was "if any one man choose to enslave another, 
no third man shall be allowed to object." This very apt- 
ness and fairness carried with it great conviction. 

But no amount of earnestness alone would have suf- 
ficed. A clear, historic exposition, invincible argument, 
and a logical statement of the necessary trend of pro-slavery 
aggression, made the speech widely influential, and ele- 
vated the forensic controversy at the start, so that the en- 
suing campaign was one of educatian to the voting con- 
stituency of the Nation. Not only were men made stronger 
in individual purpose, but the policies of two great politi- 
cal parties were inaugurated, and the necessity for a third 
part} T made. The disruption of the Democracy and the 
unification of the Republicans in 1860, was due largely to 
influences which sprang from the campaign of 1858. 

The bold declaration that " a house divided against 
itself" could not stand, backed by the prophecy that it 
would not fall, but would cease to be divided, drew into 
broad light the animus of the time, and formed the text 
for Senator Douglas during a large portion of the subse- 
quent debates. The Senator spent his time in trying to 
prove Lincoln a disunionist; everywhere putting against 
this assertion the boast that he himself believed in the 
sacred right of the people to govern themselves. 

The Springfield speech must be looked upon as form- 
ing the key-note of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and, to- 
gether with the cornering of Douglas at Freeport, it con- 
stituted the most valuable result of the debates. At the 
same time the contest of these men is the most novel in the 
history of American politics. 

To a critical foreigner, this method of transferring the 
fundamental questions of state-craft to an heterogeneous 
audience, in groves, on river-banks, and in public-squares, 
to be thrown forth by the partisan press, might have 
seemed illy advised, or, at least, incongruous. But it was 
a question upon which legislatures had been in the habit 
of following the voice of the people, and no more represen- 
tative presentation and hearing could have been obtained. 
Certainly, Congress was in no shape to properly handle the 
matter; and the Supreme Court had outraged the best 
sense and conscience of a great multitude of irreproachable 



59 

patriots. It is true that one of the contestants prevaricated 
and that he juggled the truth, but he was a formidable foe, 
who stood as the champion of an error deeply rooted. Only 
clear logic, a cool head, and an earnest heart could destroy 
his influence. These, Lincoln furnished. 

In a sense the struggle was grotesque. The "Little 
Giant" faced a "Big- Giant," as Arnold says. Moreover, 
he talked to man}- in the audience, and beyond it, who 
were giants. Stephen A. Douglas had great sympathy 
from the fact that with him it was a life or death conflict. 
Every art of casuistry was employed by him to gain suc- 
cess, and deeper than the plea of the patriot, lay the finesse 
of the politician. 

Fortunate it was that these two men, of such differing 
temperaments, wide experience, and intimate mutual 
acquaintance, stood pitted against each other. All 
the elements favorable to success in either case 
were present in the complete familiarity which ensued. 
Douglas knew where to take Lincoln, and Lincoln knew 
where to attack Douglas; but it is sad for his memory that 
Douglas chose to take Lincoln in an underhand manner, 
constantly distorting his tenets and argument. He made 
the mistake of believing that an attack upon "Black-Re- 
publicanism" was equivalent to Lincoln's annihilation, 
and insisted upon construing the words of his opponent as 
he pleased. For Lincoln there was nothing else to do but 
to enter his protest, and engage in the discussion of the 
questions at stake upon their merits. 

To the charge of Douglas that the house-divided- 
against-itself doctrine was vicious, Lincoln replied b}- ask- 
ing : " Does the Judge say it can stand ? " To the impli- 
cation that the " fathers" cared not which way the slavery 
question was settled, Lincoln brought an abundance of 
negative historical proof. To the personal profession of 
Douglas that it mattered not which way the question 
was voted, Lincoln replied that it was a matter of deep 
concern to him. His vision could detect a difference be- 
tween the matter of slave legislaton and the " cranberrv 
laws" of Indiana. The anxiety of Douglas to cover argu- 
ment with vituperation was answered in this tart style : 
" If you have ever studied Geometry, you remember that 



60 

by a course of reasoning-, Euclid proves that all the angles 
in a triangle are equal to two right angles. Euclid has 
shown you how to work it out. Now if you undertake to 
disprove that proposition and to show that it is erroneous, 
would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar ? " 

But the most serious charge Lincoln had to refute was 
the one claiming that he was at an attempt to impinge the 
rights of the slave-holders in the slave-states, but also to 
jeopardize the safety of the Union itself. In the mouth of 
Douglas, this was a very strong argument for, more than 
all else, it damag-ed Lincoln and his principles in the esti- 
mation of men whose influence was greatly needed in the 
coming election. Their vicious vagaries concerning dis- 
union is what brought the Abolitionists into ill-repute, and 
so far as slavery was concerned, no one of judgment ex- 
pected its abolition south of the Mason and Dixon line. 
Therefore, in his reply to the Senator, delivered at Chi- 
cago, on the evening- of July 10, Lincoln paid considerable 
attention to these charges, as he did during the course of 
the succeeding joint debates. In the speech at Chicago he 
said : 

"Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at 
Springfield. He says they are to be the issues of this campaign. 
The first one of these points he bases upon the language in a speech 
which I delivered at Springfield, which I believe I can quote cor- 
rectly from memory. I said there that ' we are now far into the 
fifth j'ear since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and 
with the confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation; 
under the operation of that policy, that agitation had not only not 
ceased, but had constantly augmented.' 'I believe it will not cease 
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed.' ' A house divided 
against itself cannot stand.' 'I believe this government cannot 
endure half slave and half free.' ' I do not expect the Union to be 
dissolved ' — I am quoting from my speech — ' I do not expect the 
house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will be- 
come all one thing or the other. Either the opponents of slavery will 
arrest the spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest, 
in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its ad- 
vocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all 
the states, north as well as south.' 

" What is the paragraph ? In this paragraph which I have 
quoted in your hearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, 
Judge Douglas thinks he discovers great political heresy.. I want 
your attention particularly to what he inferred from it. He says I 
am in favor of making all the states of this Union uniform in all 
their internal regulations ; that in all their domestic concerns I am 



61 

in favor of making them entirely uniform. He draws this infer- 
ence from the language I have quoted to you. He says that I am in 
favor of making war by the North upon the South for the extinction 
of slavery ; that I am also in favor of inviting- (so he expresses it) 
the South to a war upon the North, for the purpose of nationalizing 
slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will carefully read that 
passage over; that I did not say that I was in favor of anything in 
it. I only said what I expected would take place. I made a predic- 
tion only — it may have been a foolish one perhaps. I did not even 
say that I desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate 
extinction. I do say now, however, so there need be no longer any 
difficulty about that. It may be written down in the erreat speech. 
# # " * * * * * 

•• I am not, in the first place, unaware that this Government 
has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. I know that. 
I am tolerably well acquainted with the history of the country, and I 
know that it has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. 
1 h, Hi n -and that is what I meant to alude to there — I belu w it has 
endured, because during all that time, until the introduction of the 
Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that 
slavery was in the course of ultimate extinction. That was what 
gave us the rest that we had through that period of eighty-two 
years : at least, so I believe. I have always hated slavery. I think 
as much as any Abolitionist — I have been an Old Line Whig— I have 
always hated it. but I have always been quiet about it until this new 
era of the introduction of the Nebraska bill began. I always belies ed 
that everybody was against it. and that it was in course of ultimate 
extinction. [Pointing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by] Brown- 
ing thought so : the great mass of the nation have rested in the be- 
lief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. They had 
reason so to believe. 

'• The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant history 
led the people to believe so ; and that such was the belief of the 
framers of the Constitution itself, why did these old men. about the 
time of the adoption of the Constitution decree that slavery should 
not go into the new territory, where it had already gone ? Why de- 
clare that within twenty years the African Slave Trade, by which 
slaves are supplied, might be cut off by Congress? Why were all 
these acts? I might enumerate more of these acts—hut enough. 
What were they but a clear indication that the framers of the Con- 
stitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that in- 
stitution ? And now, w T hen T say. as [ said in my speech that Judge 
Douglas has quoted from, when T say I think the opponents of slav- 
ery will resist the further spread of it, and place it where the pub- 
lic mind shall rest with the belief that it is in course of ultimate ex- 
tinction. I only mean to say, that they will place it where the found- 
ers of this Government orignally placed it 

" I have said a hundred times, and 1 have now no inclination 
to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no 
inclination in the people of the free-states to enter into the slave- 
states, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said 



62 

that always: Judge Douglas has heard me say it — if not quite a hundred 
times, at least as good as a hundred times : and when it is said that 
I am in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists, I know it is 
unwarranted by anything I have ever intended, and, as I believe, by 
anything I have ever said. If, by any means, I have ever used lan- 
guage which could fairly be so construed (as, however, T believe I 
never have), I now correct it. 

•' So much then for the inference that Judge Douglas draws, 
that I am in favor of setting the sections at war with one another. 
I know that I never meant any such thing, and I believe that no fair 
mind can infer any such thing from anything I have ever said." 

This position was maintained during - the joint debates 
and, at the risk of being- tiresome, a few extracts from the 
first joint discussion, at Ottawa, Aug. 21, must be given. 
After quoting at some length from his Peoria speech of 
1854, Lincoln continued : 

" Now gentlemen, I don't want to read to any greater length. 
but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in l'egard to 
the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, 
and anything that argues me into his (Douglas 1 ) idea of perfect social 
and political equality with the negro, is a specious and fantastic ar- 
rangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to 
be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I 
have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institu- 
tion of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no law- 
ful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose 
to introduce political and tocial equality between the white and the 
black races. There is a physical difference between the two. which, 
in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together 
upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a 
necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Doug- 
las, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior 
position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold 
that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why 
the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the 
Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the 
white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many 
respects — certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral and intellect- 
ual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of 
anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal 
of Judge Douglas, mid the equal of any living man." 

To such arguments there was no reply. Douglas never 
answered them but kept insisting that Lincoln's object was 
to destroy slavery in the slave-states ; produce amalga- 
mation of the races; and thereby disrupt the Union. But it 
made little difference whether or not his opponent chose to 



63 

admit the force of Lincoln's logic — it was intended for the 
common people, and they, unblinded by soli-interest and 
unhampered by political alliance, could, and did freely form 
individual opinions. Somehow the impression grew in 
their minds (and this was especially true of the people of 
Illinois) that if the crisis, so dramatically announced by 
Douglas, should come the logical defender of the Union 
would not be the man who had broken with his party, and 
practically sought to annul the dictum of the Supreme 
Court, which he, at the same time, inconsistently 
acknowledged to be his guide. 

During the course of the debates, Lincoln delivered 
many speeches other than those given at the joint-meet- 
ings. In some of them, he made his clearest expositions, 
such as at Edwardsville, where he drew the remarkable 
distinction between the Democratic and Republican parties. 
Again at Paris, he gave a lucid exposition of the kind of 
Popular Sovereignty invented by Douglas. As the Cooper 
Institute Speech is the flower of those remarkable years, 
and may well serve to-day as a model of its kind, it must 
be granted more than a passing glance. 

Its force on the printed page is in its intense logic. 
Withal it is so clear that it appeals irresistibly to him who 
will admit the truth of its premise. Taking up the asser- 
tion of Douglas that "Our fathers when they framed the 
government under which we live understood this question 
just as well and even better than we do now," Lincoln as- 
sented to the truth of the statement, and added, "It simply 
leaves the inquiry ' what was the understanding these 
fathers had of the questions mentioned?' " With an expo- 
sition of History clearer than any he had made theretofore, 
the speaker showed how the majority had put themselves 
on record as understanding that "No line dividing local 
from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, 
properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Fed- 
eral territory." Following the voices of the fathers as 
they were heard through the years of History* down past 
the Ordinance of 1787; the cession of territory by Southern 
states; the organization of the Territory of Mississippi; 
the purchase of Louisiana; and the Missouri question, in 
all covering a period of thirty-six years since the formation 



64 

of the Constitution, Lincoln showed beyond peradventure 
the preponderance of their authority for his doctrine of 
ability upon the part of Congress to prohibit slavery in the 
territories. He clinched this point as follows : 

" The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who 
framed the Constitution — twenty-one -a clear majority of the whole 
—certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal 
authority, nor any part of the Constitution forbade the Federal Gov- 
ernment to control slavery in the Federal Territories : while all the 
rest probably had the same understanding'. Such, unquestionably, 
was the understanding - of our fathers who framed the original Con- 
stitution : and the text affirms that they understood the question 
better than we." 

But those who insisted upon the Federal control of 
slaver} 7 in the territories pointed to the amendments. 
The Dred Scott case was decided upon the fifth amendment, 
while Senator Doug-las planted himself upon the tenth. 
But Lincoln showed that the same men who framed the 
Constitution made the amendments thereto, and, through 
a course of simple reasoning, if they violated the spirit of 
the original Instrument, in so doing they were guilty of 
incomprehensible inconsistency. Said he : 

" So far as being guided by the fathers, if we supplant the 
opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon 
evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great 
authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand ; and most 
surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood 
the question better than we." 

Changing the entire line of argument, Lincoln next 
proceeded to plead with the Southern brethren upon be- 
half of the Union. With perfect candor, appealing to 
them as follows : "In the general qualities of reason and 
justice, you are not inferior to any other people;" then he 
charged them with misrepresenting Republicans and Re- 
publican doctrine. To the assertion that the Republican 
part}- was sectional, he said that as soon as it obtained 
votes in the South it would cease so to be. To the claim 
upon the part of pro-slavery men that the North was radi- 
cal, and that they alone were conservative in the matter, 
Lincoln replied : 

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and 
tried against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the 



identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted 
by our fathers who framed the governmenl under which we live; 
while you with one accord, reject and scoul and spil upon thai old 
policy, and insisl upon substituting something new." 

He kindly, yet persistently showed the South that they 
were the ones who made the slavery issue more prominent, 
by discarding the principle of the fathers, and so far as the 
John Brown raid was concerned, not a single iota of evi- 
dence could be adduced other than that it was the effort of 
a misguided fanatic. 

In regard to disunion threats, Lincoln plainly showed 
the South that unless her constitutional rights were being- 
withheld "by mere force of numbers," she would have no 
palliation, much less justification. But the Supremo Court 
was not unanimous in its Dred Scott decision even amongst 
those who held to the dogmas of the South; "It was made 
in a divided court by a bare majority of the judges, and 
they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons 
for making it," 

Upon the other hand, the fathers who framed the 
Constitution, in deciding the question to the contrary, did 
so without a division of opinion either at the time or after 
it was made. 

In closing his argument to the South, Lincoln said : 

-- Bnt you will not abide the election of a Republican president. 
In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, 
you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! 
That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, anil mutters 
through his teeth 'stand, and deliver, or I shall kill you: and then 
you will be a murderer." To be sure, what the robber demanded of 
me my money was my own: and I had a clear right to keep it: hut 
it was no more my own than my vote is my own: and threat of death 
1m me to extort my money, and threat of destruction to the Inion. to 
extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle." 

As a parting sentiment, he appealed to Republicans to 
maintain peace in the Nation. He ur^ed them to drop 
passion and ill-temper. It was asking a great deal in view 
of Kansas-Nebraska, Dred Scott, Popular Sovereignty, 
and the execution of Brown. Yet compilation was to be 
tried. "Let them [the South] alone," said the speaker, 
and '* convince them that we do let them alone," they would 
do their best to make the North call slavery right; to annul 
the free-state constitutions, so far as their bearing upon 



66 

the question was concerned. The logic of the South would 
compel its legislators to make a war of extermination upon 
the anti-slavery sentiment of the land. In peerless force 
of reason, and power of feeling only human, the orator 
closed his appeal with the following words : 

" Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it 
alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising 
from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes 
will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and 
to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids 
this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectivelj'. Let 
us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith 
we are so industriously plied and belabored — contrivances such as 
groping- for some middle ground between the right and the wrong; 
vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor 
a dead man; such as a policy of 'don't care' on a question about 
which all true men do care; such as Union appeals beseeching true 
Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and 
calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as 
invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washing- 
ton said and undo what Washington did. 

" Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations 
against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the 
Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that 
right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our 
duty as we understand it." 

Beyond question, at the time, this was the most valu- 
able speech made by Abraham Lincoln since the one at 
Springfield in 1858. Not only did it appeal to the people 
by its incomparable setting forth of historical fact, but by 
its penetrating logic as well. 

However, that it powerfully swayed its immediate 
hearers, intelligent as they were, was not a necessar}- proof 
of its inherent worth. The audience was in political sym- 
pathy with the speaker. They were in a position to be 
prejudiced in his favor. But it was an ominous sign when 
the leading minds of the nation's metropolis, and its most 
influential journals gave unqualified approval of Lincoln's 
presentation. 

The greater worth of the speech lay in its consummate 
appeal to reason and heart. The language was firm yet 
not harsh ; conciliator}', yet not cowardly. In these words 
may be found a foretoken of the future utterances of this 
most patient man, always winning by his patience as well 
as by his reason. 



67 

The chief intrinsic value of the speech was in the ir- 
refutable argument from history to the effect that the fath- 
ers believed they placed the institution of slavery in the 
course of ultimate extinction. This point was denied 
by all pro-slavery men of ever}- class, and has been insisted 
upon by all such writers upon the question even after the 
war had, in fact, settled the controversy. Thus, Stephens, 
the ablest of the -post helium state rights advocates, in 
speaking - of slaver)- says : " The same difference of opinion 
exists to a more general extent, amongst those who 
formed the Constitution, when it was made and adopted 
— The changes have been mainly to our side." But the 
first half of Lincoln's Cooper Institute Speech has never 
been refuted successfully. Nor, indeed, can it be. In a 
succinct manner it literally exhausted the subject, and 
nothing of material worth may be added to that argument. 

The appeal to the South was masted}' ; proof, the suc- 
ceeding history of this section added force to its meaning 
and turned the words of warning into the language of 
prophecy. 

It was putting the question differently from what the 
Eastern people had expected, not only differently from what 
the}' had expected from Lincoln, but from anyone else. If 
curiosity compelled their attendance, reason held their 
attention and candor won their acquiescence. They had 
been exasperated with the harangues of Phillips and 
Thompson ; they were encouraged and taught by the arg- 
uments of Lincoln. 

The gaunt form, wrinkled face and earnest soul upon 
the platform of Cooper Institute gave them a more poten- 
tial illustration of the conflict between Slavery and Free- 
dom, Union and Disunion than Phillips at Fanuel Hall or 
Brown, on his Virginia scaffold ; more potential because 
the ultimate master in the "impending crisis," was, of 
necessity, a man not only firm of purpose and warm of 
heart, but searching of intellect and crowned with common 
sense. If the student would know the secret of the one's 
failure and of the other's success let him analyze the force 
and influence of these typical sentences : 

" We gibbet a Northern hound to-day, side by side with 
the infamous Mason, of Virginia." 



68 

" I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. 
We must not be enemies. Though passion may have 
strained, it must not break our bonds of affection." 

Aside from the great effect of the Freeport heresy, and 
the anti-slavery argument of the Cooper Institute Speech, 
vital service was done for the cause of Union in the general 
character and tone of the debates. Lincoln predicted the 
logical conclusion of the system of slavery extension, and 
showed how it would come to involve the freedom of the 
free-states themselves. The speeches in Ohio and the 
Cooper Institute Speech extended the influence of previous 
declarations — the latter being rendered doubly efficacious 
because of its scholarly tone. 

As to the matter of slaver}', it was the basis of all dis- 
cussion because it was the basis of all thought. So far as 
Douglas was concerned, he played on the popular antipathy 
to Abolitionism to far better advantage than he could have 
discussed the straight issue of Union or disunion, for in 
their inmost hearts there was no difference between the 
two men on this issue — hence the danger to the Union of 
Douglas' vagaries. Lincoln contributed powerfully to the 
unification of Northern anti-slavery sentiment, but the 
Abolitionists did not relish his speeches because they were 
conservative. They regarded his disavowal of negro social 
equality as being a politic attitude, and persistently refused 
to allow to him elevation of motive or honesty of purpose. 
Douglas impeached them when he sought to stigmatize his 
opponents bv classing him amongst them. But by showing 
the incompatibility between the spread of slavery and the 
maintenance of the Constitution, Lincoln made the 
strongest kind of an argument for the Union. The House- 
divided-against-itself Speech was the key-note of the whole 
campaign, and around it swung the ideas in every speech of 
Lincoln from 1858 to 1860. 

A careful study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates will 
convince the impartial student of two things ; (1) of the 
insidiousness of the "don't care" theory of handling the 
question; and (2) of the superior power of arg-ument needed 
to meet this theon T successfully. It is probable that Sen- 
ator Douglas was deceived by his own logic, and his 
moral nature was of such a cast that he could see no differ- 



69 

once between the matter of handling- a Virginia slave and 
a Virginia oyster. To him it was a question of mere 

property. He really conceived that his quarrel with the 
Administration was based on equitable grounds. Popular 
Sovereignty was a great right ; Lincoln nowhere denied it. 
But the Popular Sovereignty of Douglas was a' delusion 
ami a snare, because of its author's inability to regard the 
rights of the white and black as being anywise equal. 
It the Illinois Senator was deceived, it is no wonder that, 
at the outset, a great many earnest men at the North kept 
him company. 

It is a question how far this deception of Douglas went 
— no doubt to a great extent. We can admire the man. 
since he dared so much to uphold his pet dogma, and there 
is the seeming fact that he argued himself into inconsist- 
encies so preposterous that it was an easy thing to believe 
them after such a course of argument. Again, where a 
man's treasure is there is apt to be his heart, also. If there 
was (tie thing above another which Stephen A. Douglas 
hated, it was negro equality. This hatred led him to make 
absurd statements even in such a dignified campaign as 
that of 1858 ; as for instance in his attack upon Fred Doug- 
lass during his speech at Freeport. 

But the serious danger was not so much in the deception 
of Senator Douglas as in the hoodwinking of many honest 
men. He was comparatively powerless; they were very much 
s< >. He was the servant of the people; they were the masters 
of the servant. He had a personal ambition to gratify ; 
they had a Union to save. Thanks to the cool and clear- 
headed opponent who confronted him, this power for evil 
was largely disintegrated, and Douglas came out of the fray 
more deceived than deceiving. Still, with all the vigor of 
an intense faith in his views, and with magnificent ability 
to emphasize these views, Stephen A. Douglas was the 
most formidable antagonist the anti-slavery men at the 
North had to meet. 

Moreover, he was especially dangerous because of two 
important reasons: (1) He paraded under the banner of 
popular-rights, potent to influence a popular constituency ; 
and (2) He succeeded in yetting the Abolitionist, dis- 
unionist Greeley, and the Union, pro-slavery Crittenden 



70 

upon his side of the issue; and this, not so much from an 
understanding- of his arg-ument as from sympathy 7 with the 
man who was suffering- for his anti-Lecomptonism. The 
logic of these reasons might not have been sound, but 
its force was tremendous. There is a vein of good- 
will in American nature which sympathizes with the 
" under-dog." It does this without taking the pains to 
learn why he is under. Douglas was in this position. An 
Administration which he had disavowed was trying to 
drive him from the party, and the persecution was too 
valuable not to be turned into capital. 

But beyond this lay Douglas' real power. That two 
men so antipodal as Crittenden and Greeley were, should 
unite in their support of one and the same man, was not 
only surprising, but alarming as well. It was the attempt 
of two irreconcilable principles to be represented through 
a man himself holding principles foreign to both and 
destructive of one. But, on the slavery question. Greeley 
and Crittenden were exponents of a great deal of the 
sentiment at the North. It is clear that an} 7 dogma which 
promised to satisfy them both was sophistry and if suc- 
cessful, would bitterly disappoint one of them, postpone 
the slavery struggle and endanger the Union. None saw 
this better than Lincoln, and he was determined that, 
because of his principles, Douglas should not be put forth 
as the exponent of Northern sentiment upon the ques- 
tion, neither now nor in the future, when some ex- 
pected he would be in the camp of the anti-slavery men, 
righting for freedom; not as a Democrat, but a^ a Repub- 
lican. Happily, the people of Illinois, and of the Nation, 
also, saw the sophistry of such a prediction, and their 
immediate judgment upon the outcome was the true one. 
Lincoln met Douglas and his short-sighted friends and 
conquered them. "Reason, cold, calculating, unimpas- 
sioned reason,"* did a great share in the overthrow, but 
there was also the eloquence which comes of the knowledge 
of injustice; injustice not alone to the negro, but also to 
the white man. What could be finer than this? 

"My friends. I have endeavored to show you the logical consequen- 
ces of the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people of a Terri- 
tory cannot prevent the establishment of slavery in their midst. I have 

♦Lincoln's Works, Vol. i, p. 15. 



71 

stated what cannot be gainsaid, that the grounds upon which this 
cision is made are equally applicable to the free-States as to the 
Territories, and thai the peculiar reasons put forth by Judge Douglas 
for endorsing this decision, commit him in advance, to the nexl de- 
cision and to all other decisions coming from the same source. And 
when, by all these means, yon have succeeded in dehumanizing the 
aegro; when yon have put him down and made it impossible for him to 
lie but as the beasts of the Held : when you have extinguished hi- -on I 
in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out as 
in the darkness of the damned, are you quite sure that the demon 
you have roused will not turn and rend you? What constitutes the 
bulwark of our' liberty and independence? It is not our frowning 
battlements, our bristling sea-c r, asts. our army and our navy. T 
are not our reliance against tyranny. All of those may he turned 
against us without making us weaker for the struggle. < mr reliance 
is in the love of liberty which God lias planted in us. Our defene 
in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men. in all 
lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the 
despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with 
the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. 
Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the 
genius of your own independence and become the its of the 

; cunning tyrant who rises among you. And let me tell you. that 
all these things are prepared for you by the teachings of history, if 
the elections shall promise that the next Dred Scott decision and all 
future decisions will he quietly acquiesced in by the people."' 

The power of the debates was characterized by more 
of earnestness than is usual in political contests. Both 
men were profoundly in earnest; and one of them was 
supremely honest. Both men were shrewd lawyers of the 
highest ability. They pleaded their cases as lawyers do. 
It is easy for an unthinking- man to say that truth is 
stronger than error, and that truth settled the case. But 
how hard to extract truth from a mountain of sophistry, 
and convince a people against that people's will! 

Nothing less than three things gave Lincoln the 
victory; a complete knowledge of his antagonist; a shrewd 
understanding of the American people; and a clear vision 
of the trend and effect of insidious political theory. It is 
beyond dispute that the man who possessed these three 
things, and he alone, was capable of success in three other 
things; the overthrow of Douglas' supremacy at the North; 
the unification of anti-slavery factions; and of being the 
logical champion of the Union against a wrong and annihi- 
lating creed. 



72 

True to the prophecy of Lincoln, Douglas could not 
reconcile his Freeport doctrine with his political profess- 
ions, when he went back to his Senatorial brethren. In 
the second session of the Thirty-fitth Congress he was 
bitterly assailed for his heresy, and particular!}- b}- Jeffer- 
son Davis. The wil}- Illinois Senator then discovered that 
it was easier to answer his untrained constituency that to 
make himself good again with such Democrats as Davis 
and Brown, of Mississippi. 

The sharpest senate debate was precipitated Feb. 23, 
by an amendment offered by Senator Hale to an appropri- 
ation bill. The amendment struck out from the bill for 
the admission of Kansas, approved May 4, 1S5S, the pro- 
viso that the state should be admitted " ' whenever it is 
ascertained, by a census duly and legally taken, that the 
population ot said Territory equals or exceeds the ratio of 
representation required for a member of ihe House of 
Representatives in- the Congress of the United States.' 1 
which words are hereby repealed."' 

Senator Brown opened lire upon the non-intervention 
doctrine and spoke of Douglas' Popular Sovereignity thus: 

" I utterl}', totally, entirely, persistently, and consistently, re- 
pudiate the whole doctrine of squatter sovereignty. By squatter 
sovereignty I mean territorial sovereignty. I utterly deny that 
there is aii3" sovereignty in a territory." 

Said Senator Jefferson Davis : 

•• I have heard many a siren's song on this doctrine of non- 
intervention ; a thing shadowy and fleeting, changing its color as 
often as the chameleon, which never meant anything fairly unless 
it was that Congress would not attempt to legislate upon a subject 
over which they had no control ; that they would not attempt to es- 
tablish slavery anywhere nor to prohibit it anywhere, and such was 
the language of the Compromise Measures of 1S50 when this doctrine 
was inaugurated. Since that it has been woven into a delusive 
gauze thrown over the public mind, and presented as an obligation 
of the Democratic party to stand still ; withholding from an Amer- 
ican citizen the protection he has a right to claim ; to surrender their 
power ; to do nothing ; to prove faithless to the trust they hold at the 
hands of the people of the States." 

Said Gwin, of California : 

" I am not going to enter into this discussion, but I wish to 
state to the Senate that if the Senator from Illinois had given the 
same interpretation as he does now to the Kansas-Nebraska bill 



73 

when that question was before the Senate, I never should have 
voted for it. * * * I undertake to say that there is. not a member 
of this body that voted for the bill at the time, with the exception of 
the Senator, who entertains the same opinion in regard to its oper- 
ation that he has expressed to-day.*' 

In reply to criticisms on his policy, Doug-las retorted 
that Buchanan had won his elevation to the Presidency on 
condition of his espousing the dogma of Popular Sov- 
ereignty, when he issued his letter of acceptance of the 
nomination on the Cincinnati platform. ''The people of 
the North." said Douglas, "certainly understood him to 
hold the doctrine of self-government in the territories as 
well as in the states, and as applicable to slave property 
as well as to all other species of property. I undertake to 
say," he added, "that he (Buchanan) would not have 
carried one-half the Democratic vote in any free-state, if 
he had not thus been understood." 

To this attempt at shifting- of responsibility upon the 
President, Davis responded: 

"As for the conclusion the Senator draws in relation to>the 
vote, it may be very suggestive, and very useful to those who are to 
be subjected to such a task hereafter ; bul as. in the course of his re- 
mai ks, he puts that party to which I belong- in what I esteem to be 
a false position, 1 must say to him that, without assuming to know 
what would have been the vote in Pennsylvania, or what would have 
been the vote in Ohio, or what will be the vote in Pennsylvania, or 
what will be the vote in Ohio, upon a candidate who asserts the truth 
in relation to the Constitutional rights of the South. 1 take issue 
with him entirely upon the ground which he assumes when , 
that the President, in his letter, gave promise of the doctrine which 
he denounces. The President, in his letter, said ' The people of a 
Territory, like those of a state." Then the question arise.-., how can 
people of a state act upon this subject? The people of a stale act 
in convention when they form a constitution. The inhabitants of a 
Territory, when they become a people, have a convention to form a 
const it ut ion, and then act like the people of a State. T lent 

could not mean more than that, because the platform to which the 
Senator refers had specifically referred to the time when this po 
would be possessed, when, with a certain population, they formed a 
constitution and asked to be admitted into the Union. The letter of 
acceptance could not have been intended to war with the resolutions 
of the convention by which the President was nominated ; and if not 
so intended, it is to he construed in connection with these resolu- 
tions." 

It will be seen that Senator Douglas was totally 
unable to reconcile his utterance upon the stump in 



74 

Illinois with the attitude Southern members had marked 
out for him. In their estimation, the Freeport doctrine 
was the rankest kind of heresy, and he who could so far 
forget his Democratic principles as to give countenance to 
such a dogma, much less to originate it, henceforth had 
no favor in their eyes. Thus was Douglas ground between 
the upper and nether of Northern distrust and Southern 
hate. 

In spite of Douglas' negation; in spite of Congressional 
circumlocution; in spite of the attempted self-deception 
upon the part of the North and South, there was an " irre- 
pressible conflict" which no self-interest could obviate. 
Men largely felt as thev saw and the question could not 
appear the same to men whose angle of vision differed. 

Now that forty years have elapsed, the interested, but 
unprejudiced student can believe that most men on all 
sides were sincere in their views, however mistaken these 
might have been. When he sees Douglas with mouth full 
of sophistr}-, and manner burdened with buncombe, he 
abominates the spirit; when he beholds the "Little Giant " 
contending against an adverse Administration, he admires 
the pluck. Though he was so prone to demagogism, this 
man possessed noble traits, and his great error was com- 
mitted because of his inherent inability to look upon the 
matter of slavery as being of more importance, as his 
opponent said, than the "cranberry laws of Indiana." 

But a farther fact remains to be noted. Douglas was 
spurred on to his anti-Lecompton attitude by the uncom- 
promising opposition of his constituency to that swindle. 
As a politician it was his business to combat the Adminis- 
tration. This, however gave influential Whigs and 
Republicans no excuse for deserting Lincoln and Republi- 
canism. The cause needed a champion who had not taken 
the stand for truth unwillingly, but whose moral grasp of 
the controversy lay in an inherent knowledge of the dan- 
gers as well as of the inhuman trend of pro-slavery tenets. 
Such a champion was Abraham Lincoln. 

In Congress, as elsewhere, three opinions of Federal 
power in relation to slaver}' obtained, dividing the body 
into three well-defined classes. 

The first consisted of those who denied Congress the 



75 

power to legislate to extend slavery, but held that it could 
prohibit. Consequently, the territorial legislature, draw- 
ing- its authority from Congress, as regarding- slavery 
could legislate to prohibit only. 

The second class assumed the opposite position. Ac- 
cording to their idea, Congress had no power to prohibit 
slaver v, but were in duty bound to protect it. Slavery 
being recognized under "the Constitution, should be ad- 
mitted to the territories, which were the common property 
of the states. Moreover, the territorial legislature "being 
the creature of Congress could not exercise powers greater 
than those possessed by the creator." 

The third class consisted of men, some of whom 
thought one way, some another, as to the question of 
Congressional power to legislate for the " admission, exten- 
sion or prohibition of slavery in the territories." but all of 
this class of reasoners "claimed for the people of the 
territories the power and the right, acting through their 
legislatures, to admit or exclude, protect or prohibit 
African slavery." 

Of the first class, Senators Chase and Wade were 
representatives, of the second, Brown and Davis, and of 
the third, Douglas and Cass. 



The night of Sunday, Oct., 17, 1859, witnessed one of 
the most remarkable events of the whole anti-slavery strug- 
gie. This judgment of its importance is made guardedly. 

Of itself considered, Jonn Brown's raid did not possess 
one-half the thrilling features which characterized the 
border warfare in Kansas. To his most partial friends the 
attempt at seizure was a chimerical transaction and History 
can never designate it by any other term. The madnessof 
the outbreak finds explanation in the character of the man 
who stood at its head. Reared in the strictest tenets of 
Calvinistic religion, through a long and eventful life car- 
rying to its utmost bounds of absurdity the doctrine that 
right makes might; dreaming dreams and seeing visions 
of guardian angels on the belligerent plains of Kansas ; 
insanely possessed of the idea of the efficiency of an armed 
negro insurrection ; encouraged by such men as Parker, 
Sanborn and Higginson, it is no wonder that John Brown. 



76 

with complete equanimity, undertook his preposterous 
mission at Harper's Ferry. Little did the quiet denizens 
of this sleepy town dream how great their day and place 
were. In the tall, guantform, of military- carriage, in the 
great beard, and bushy hair; in the sharp nose, and piercing, 
gray eye, they saw nothing more than Yankee shrewdness 
and push. But in this character fanaticism and religious 
fervor were greater than prudence and qualities of leader- 
ship, for commanding but twenty-two men, Brown struck 
a blow at the institution whose life was to be taken only 
after four years of unparalleled strife. With plans known 
to but the little company, here was a band which fondly 
hoped to strike terror into the heart of every slave-holder 
from Virginia to the Gulf. Not only was the North igno- 
rant of the design; but the negroes themselves, worked day 
after day in the fields, and slept peacefully in their cabins 
all unconscious of an insurrection gotten up for them, and 
dependent for success on their co-operation. 

From the beginning - , there was no shadow of success; 
Garrison would have said so. So would have spoken 
Gerritt Smith. Even the fiery Phillips would have 
counseled against the madness of the attempt. Was man 
ever more bereft of reason, or did he ever strike under 
circumstances more unpropitious? But Brown's raid 
was remarkable and fair criticism will adiudge his work 
far-reaching, and him a martyr. Wendell Phillips struck 
the truth when he said, in his eloquent oration upon 
Harper's Ferry: "Virginia did not tremble at an old, 
gray-headed man at Harper's Ferry; they trembled at a 
John Brown in every man's own conscience." The words 
bespoke a literal truth. Though no man of sense upheld 
his method, hundreds of thousands felt a sincere pity for 
the old fanatic, and inwardly rejoiced at the terror of the 
South. John Brown had only put into act the thought of 
a vast number of his fellow countrymen. It is not true 
that anv considerable number at the North sympathized 
with slave insurrection, but an ever increasing class earnest- 
ly believed that no settlement of the controversy between 
slavery and freedom would come short of physical force. 
Just as the North eulogized Sumner, and the South Brooks, 
so now the South hang-ed Brown and the North canonized 



77 

him. The same philosophy lay at the bottom of actions 
in both instances. It was that of the "irrepressible con- 
flict," and, calmly reviewing- the fearfully strained relations 
between the two sections, from 1854, the wonder is that 
the actual blow- should have been reserved until the dying 
months of 1859. 

Of John Brown himself, little more need be said. 
History can not approve the verdict of Pollard, that he 
was a desperate outlaw "who had obtained in Kansas the 
notoriety of a horse-thief and assassin;" neither will it 
accept the fervid encomiums of Phillips, with his extrava- 
gant statement: "But if Virginia tyrants dare hang- him 
after this mockery of a trial, it will take two Washingtons 
at least to make the name of the State anything but 
abominable in time to come." 

In his Kansas warfare, Brown committed some depre- 
dations not unlike those indulged in by the class of men 
who afterward engaged in bush-whacking, with this dif- 
ference; they did their deeds in the name of bondage, he 
wrought his for the sake of liberty. Notwithstanding his 
checkered career, John Brown was as real a martyr as 
History produces. His eloquent address to the Virginia 
court which sentenced him proves his unselfish devotion in 
behalf of God's "despised poor." With all his eccentricity 
and lawlessness, such was his heroism that the hand 
which throttled him is raised in acknowledging his valor. 
It is not to be wondered at that the song of which he is 
the subject rang in every loyal household at the North and 
cheered many a regiment as it swept on to battle. Yet, 
it was a remarkable transformation that placed this son°- 
in the repertory of the musical bands of the same army*, 
which in different arms first drew up on the streets of 
Topeka, before the Free-State convention, and afterward 
battered down the doors of old John Brown's extemporized 
fort, at Harper's Ferry. Garrison put it well in these words: 

"The sympathy and admiration now so widely felt for him prove 
how marvelous has been the change effected in public opinion during 
thirty years of moral agitation— a change so great indeed, that 
whereas, ten yearssince, there were thousands who could not endure 
m\ I Lghtesl word of rebuke of the South, they can now easily swallow 
John Brown, whole, and his rifle into the bargain. In firing his trim. 
he has merely told us what time of day it is. It is high noon, thank 
God." 



78 

"The lamentable tragedy at Harper's Ferry is clearly 
traceable" to the "unjustifiable attempt to force slavery 
into Kansas by a repeal of the Missouri Compromise," 
wrote ex-President Fillmore to a Union convention held in 
New York immediately after the execution of Brown. 
But it meant far more than any other event following- the 
repeal. Heretofore, the struggle had been in Congress, 
on the stump in Illinois, and on the prairies of Kansas. It 
was a matter of territorial controversy. The states were 
rather indirectly concerned. John Brown transferred the 
conflict to the seat of war, where it was to be ultimately 
settled — between states divided by the terms free and slave. 
If the warfare on the Kansas border had been spasmodic 
and illy defined, this was a certain blow at the institution 
of the South on her own soil. It was the opening- of a new 
and more vital phase of the dispute. Two hundred medi- 
cal students left their school in Philadelphia, and were 
publicly received by Governor Wise. It was an omen 
of the break-up. The Brown raid made the South fear- 
fully angry — and, in view of their Legrees, it is not to 
be wondered at that, beyond all else, they dreaded a slave- 
insurrectioo. But they had reason to believe that John 
Brown had able sympathizers at the entire North. Though 
the partisan attempt to fasten g-uilt upon the Republicans 
failed, hardly a politician of note raised his voice ag-ainst 
the principle Brown died for. They condemned his 
method; they secretly wished that he might have gotten 
well out of the clutch of the law. But there was one ex- 
ception. Seward, who was in Europe during the Harper's 
Ferry episode, returned only a day or two before the open- 
ing of 1860. Upon resuming his seat in the Senate, he 
spoke on the question of the admission of Kansas Feb. 29, 
and said of Brown: 

"While generous and charitable natures will probably concede 
that John Brown and his associates acted on earnest though fatally 
erroneous convictions, yet all good citizens will nevertheless agree, 
that this attempt to execute an unlawful purpose in Viginia by in- 
vasion, involving servile war, was an act of sedition and treason, 
and criminal in just the extent that it afflicted the public peace 
and was destructive of human happiness and human life." 

Of course such words as these called down upon their 
author's head the most virulent abuse of the Abolitionists, 



79 

and many not of this political household wished they had 
not been uttered. At the time Seward was branded a 
trimmer, having- in mind the election of the coming- autumn. 
But all such criticism was unjust. Though Seward was a 
politician, History shows these utterances to have been 
brave. Certainly he could expect nothing from the South 
which had not given a single electoral vote to Fremont, 
and if such sentiments as he uttered were to make for him 
enemies, they would be drawn from the North; many from 
his own party. The truth is, Seward was right in his 
estimation of the nature of Brown's raid. No community 
could allow such an outbreak to go unavenged. The 
fault of the New York Senator laid in his seeming indiffer- 
ence to the spirit of John Brown, and in his indiscriminate 
classing of the little band at Harper's Ferry amongst the 
most lawless desperadoes of the Kansas border. 

But another had rendered his judgment upon the 
affair, and so calm, unprejudiced and just ^vas this judg- 
ment that it has come down to us unchallenged. It was 
not the eulogy of Phillips, nor the merciless logic of 
Seward; it was the common sense of Abraham Lincoln 
which placed the entente at the Ferry in its proper light. 
Said he at Cooper Institute: 

"John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave-insur- 
rection. It was an attempt by white men to g-et up a revolt among 
slaves, in which the slave refused to participate. In fact, it was so 
absurd that the slaves with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough 
it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds 
with the many attempts related in history, at the assassination of 
kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of 
a people, till he fancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate 
them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his 
own execution. Orsini's attempt on L,ouis Napoleon and John 
Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their philosophy, pre- 
cisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in 
the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove 
the sameness of the two things." 

Whatever may have been the feelings of his hearers, 
the politic Lincoln so put the matter that truth was served 
and prejudice disarmed. In its own good time the raid 
was to bear its fruit ; but the Union was to be saved only 
after the most strenuous efforts at compromise for its sal- 
vation. The affair at Harper's Ferry was not representa- 



80 

tive of the true spirit of the North. Looking- back now, 
the student sees that compromise was out of the question 

he also sees that Abraham Lincoln, swearing- to support 

the Constitution on the Fourth of March, 1861, would have 
been without efficient power had he not stood there to win 
Union by peace, if possible ; by force only if necessary. 

Seward, and Douglas, and Davis, and Lincoln were 
mistaken in their estimation of the intensity of the "im- 
pending crisis." Phillips said it would be a bloodless 
revolution, but it was the statesman's business to be con- 
servative. The John Brown raid was a chimerical assault 
upon law, but deeper than man's law, lay the fundamental 
precepts of human right. Though his act was inexcusable, 
m God's providence it opened the Jin ale of the "irre- 
pressible conflict." Only a little longer was the "house 
to be divided against itself." 

In leaving- the question, let the eloquent words of 
Frederick Douglass be commended to the student of this 
phase of the anti-slavery conflict. Concerning Brown, the 
noted negro orator said : 

"If John Brown did not end the war that ended slavery, he did, 
at least, begin the war that ended slavery. If we look over the dates, 
places and men for which this honor is claimed, we shall find that 
not Carolina, but Virginia, not Fort Sumter, but Harper's Ferry and 
the arsenal, not Major Anderson, but John Brown began the war 
that ended American slavery, and made this a free republic. Until 
this blow was struck, the prospect for freedom was dim, shadowy and 
uncertain. The 'irrepressible conflict' was one of words, votes and 
compromises. When John Brown stretched forth his hand the sky 
was cleared,— the time for compromises was gone,— the armed hosts 
of freedom stood face to face over the chasm of a broken Union, and 
the clash of arms was at hand.'' 



The first party to make nominations in the memor- 
able campaign of 1860 was the Constitutional-Union. This 
was an heterogeneous organization composed of Old Line 
Whigs, pro and anti-slavery in sentiment, and former 
Know-nothings. Says vonHolst : " The Fillmoreans of 
1856 were the" foundation of the new party's structure, and 
from the Fillmoreans it accepted unchanged the pro- 
gramme, based on principle, of having no programme." 

The personnel oi the convention was beyond reproach. 
Men of the purest motives, and of undoubted ability were 



81 

the main-spring- of its deliberations. But the very spirit 
of its platform, professing- to be non-partisan, was the 
evidence of its weakness. Men could be no factor in the 
great conflict unless partisan. The dividing line was 
sharp, well-defined. To pass an ambiguous resolution 
so worded that it might be interpreted to meet every shade 
of opinion was the height of political lack of sagacity. It 
was a cutting of the Gordian knot which solved no 
difficulty, and a display of cuteness which received no ex- 
tended sympathy. The crying- of ''Peace, Peace.'' when 
there was no peace, deceived not an honest soul. It was 
the old habit of men who tried to make themselves believe, 
in spite of reason, that the ghost of murdered compact 
would forever down. There had been many men in 1858 
who were like unto the Bell-Everetts, but John Brown's 
raid opened the lid of Pandora's box and the sight con- 
vinced multitudes who wouldlike to have remained deceived. 

The philosophy of the Constitutional-! T nion party is to 
be interpreted by that principle which leads men to shrink 
in the face of absolute danger ; that spirit which prefers 
disgraceful ease to manly resistance, when a desperate con- 
ilict over opinion is likely to occur. 

Thus, entirely regardless of the rights of the negro, 
this broad-cloth gentry met in National convention to 
solemnly affirm that the Union was in danger, and to warn 
" geographical and sectional" parties to take care how 
they misled and deceived the people. Beyond the hope 
that Congress would settle a disputed election in their 
favor, the Constitutional-Union party cared not togo. But 
the convention served animportant purpose after all. The 
inherent defect in the deliberations was not the tremendous 
emphasis put upon the necessity for Union, but it was the 
studied ignominy of the slaverv-question. Union could 
not be too much emphasized. History was to prove 
men correct in this, at least, that in Union was there hope 
of a true settling of the conflict — that nothing could be 
done without Union. Notwithstanding the Abolitionist's 
sneer, Seward was right in his Senate speech of Feb. 2'K 
1860, when he reversed the motto of Webster "with a 
vengeance." It was "Union and Liberty" — and it was 
"Union before Liberty." Hail these men possessed as much 



82 

political sagacity as they did love for the Union, they would 
have awaited the convening - of the onl3 T true Union party — 
sectional in spite of itself, and with a burning- conscience 
touching the cause of the " irrepressible conflict." 

The succeeding history of the Constitutional -Unionists 
as a political organization only served to prove the futility of 
the hope that a peaceable settlement was within the range 
of possiblities. The value of the episode lays ultimately 
in the fact that it was one of the chapters in the long tale 
of attempts at adjustment which had to be told. Were it to 
have remained unwritten there would be a mischievous 
hiatus in the annals of anti-slavery contention. 

Of the Democratic convention, little may be said here. 
Its history was the inevitable sequence of the contest in 
Congress. What Jefferson Davis and Stephen A. Douglas 
had quarreled about in Congress, they fought over in 
Charleston and Baltimore. The breach in the party was 
permanent because the principles upon which it was divided 
were intrinsically opposite. The South was determined 
not to surrender one advantage given her by the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill and the Dred Scott decision. The North 
demanded the enthronement of Douglas or nothing. 
They insisted upon the application of the doctrine of 
Popular Sovereignty because with it rose or fell Stephen 
A. Douglas. But while, in spite of Popular Sovereignty, 
the South might have been brought to accept Douglas on 
a Southern platform, and for the sake of Northern votes, 
she could not trust the man who was guilty of the dogma 
of " unfriendly legislation. " It is probably true that the 
South expected to elect Breckenridge, at least it was so 
expected when he was nominated; still there can be little 
doubt that Douglas went into the convention ridiculously 
beaten. Lincoln had settled his opponent's fate at Ottawa, 
and Douglas had fitted his own coffin at Freeport. The 
"Little Giant" was a dangerous public character. He 
was not onl}- dangerous as a political opponent ; he was 
absolutely jeopardous as a political leader of the people. 
His heresy was subtle and insinuating, enough so, as has 
been seen, to capture Greelej* and Crittenden. 

The disruption at Charleston was of great service to 
the Union because: (1) it unmasked the Democratic party; 



83 

(2) it disarmed Doug-las; (3) it assured the election of 
Abraham Lincoln and the vindication of Republican policy. 
The outcome of the struggle in the Democratic convention 
of 1860 justified the sagacity of Lincoln's reply to tln.se 
who protested against his Ottawa interrogatory in 1858: 
"No, gentlemen, I am killing larger game. The battle of 
1860 is worth a hundred of this. " 

It is well-nigh impossible to view calmly the proceed- 
ings of the Republican National convention, which as- 
sembled in Chicago, May 16, 1860. Never before in the 
history of our Nation were circumstances so peculiar. Not 
that we had never seen crises just as important, for we 
had, but the spirit of this crisis differed from that of any 
previous one. In every sense of the term, the convention 
was ideallv representative. Leaders of public opinion were 
at the helm. Not National figures, as vonHolst well 
points out, but local leaders whose authority was un- 
questioned because backed by character untainted. They 
were men of ability typifying all shades of anti-slavery 
opinion, and oftentimes entirely at variance along ex- 
traneous lines of policy. Within the wall of the ' 'Wigwam " 
were gathered Whig and Democrat, Know-nothing and 
Abolitionist. Surely, the man who held Jackson as his ideal 
could not strike hands with him who idolized Clay, unless 
there had been some all-absorbing issue in common between 
them. To the unthinking man, this heterogeneity of 
character might have seemed a fatal weakness, but in truth 
it was the strength of the convention. It ma}* be depended 
upon in political history that where elements so diverse 
coalesce it is after an attempt upon the part of each one to 
solve the problem in its own way. Thus many who cast 
their lot with the Republicans in the Chicago convention, 
were Republicans only on the issue of the non-extension of 
slavery. Blair and Giddings, Greeley and Wilmot were 
strange yoke-fellows and the utmost right to be in common 
convention existed, else they never would have been thrown 
together. It was the logic of events. One feeling 
animated the minds of the delegates; a feeling which could 
not be repressed. It smote the phantom of discord, and 
assured the accomplishment of something from the start. 
Though the shadow of the slave-mart fell athwart the 



84 

land, the sun of freedom was climbing- to his zenith, and 
that shadow was soon to disappear. 

The men who met on the prairies of Illinois were happy 
men because they were neither bound by gag 1 of party nor 
silenced by fear of opinion. Many of them had dared 
public opinion when such daring- meant obloquy ; now they 
themselves were destined to largely control public opinion. 

The platform was thrilling — a little high-colored 
perhaps, but it was not expected that such a body of minds, 
so explosive, so possessed of the importance of the hour 
could frame its sentiments in the ordinary phraseology of 
political declaration. Stripped of its rhetorical verbiage, 
the platform struck things squarel} 7 in front. The whole 
gist of deformed theories, born of the distress of the slave 
interest, was forcibly denounced. Dred Scott, Lecomp- 
tonism, Popular Sovereignty were thrust into the bag, 
jumbled about and cast forth as of a common lot, unlit for 
farther consideration, a delusion and subversive of the true 
interests of the Union. 

With a hurrah the platform was adopted, but it proved 
to be food for thought long after the resounding rafters of 
the "Wigwam" blackened with time. In the appeal for 
home-stead lands for actual settlers ; in the declaration for a 
Pacific railroad ; in the opposition to any change in the 
naturalization laws may be seen a wise policy not so ex- 
traneous as would seem on first thought. Actual settlers 
had opened Kansas to freedom, and there was further 
territory to be rescued from slavery's maw. What better 
than a great iron highway to populate the territories, and 
what surer to call foreigners than a just chance with 
American-born citizens, in the exercise of the franchse ! 
Considering the temper of the convention, its platform was 
a remarkable creation, and showed that good heads and 
warm hearts worked together. The Constitutional-Union 
party had declared for Union, but without a single reference 
to slavery ; and here was a creed of action that put to shame 
the silly sophistry of men just as honest but not at all 
logical. 

Of course ultra Abolitionists were not satisfied with 
this declaration of principles, and it is well they were not. 
Had it been framed to their liking, it would have called 



85 

for the abrogation of the Fugitive-Slave Law, and for the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. But, 
clearly, this would have been too hasty a step. Not only 
would such a declaration have transcended the sentiment 
of the constituency represented in the convention, but it 
would have united the factions of Democracy by providing 
for them a common ground of opposition. The Republican 
party sprang into being to check the territorial aggress- 
iveness of the South. To call for the abolition of slavery 
in its stronghold would have been like unto one's casting a 
huge rock into the midst of a pool, oniv to be splattered 
with filth. 

Much has been written concerning the nominations of 
the convention, and the student is led to believe that a deal 
of it has been penned for effect. Of necessity many things 
in connection with such a gathering are done in secret, and, 
beyond question, some shall be lost to the historian ; but 
particulars do not interest us to-day. The news-paper 
descriptions in detail were fascinating ; they are yet 
as aids to the picture. The deeper philosophy of man's 
actions is the valuable lesson posterity needs to learn. 
This lesson was bountifully illustrated in the convention 
at Chicago. Laughter and tears, animal spirits and in- 
spiring eloquence all found expression in this wonderful 
gathering of men 4i upon the free prairies of the West;" 
found expression because men are men and their hearts 
respond to the stress of circumstances as the strings of the 
harp bound under the touch of the harpist, or tremble in 
the breeze. 

There never was a time during the convention when 
more than two men could have commanded any serious 
following, and there never was a moment when the chances 
of but one of these were sufficient for success. In his blunt 
way, Horace Greeley says that Lincoln was nominated 
simply because he got votes enough. This is a character- 
istic remark, but explains nothing. A deep meaning lay 
beneath the selection of Abraham Lincoln. 

What were the influences at work in the convention 
which made for the success of the one and worked the 
defeat of the other? In the first place, there was the 
matter of locality. It cannot be denied truthfully that the 



86 

city of Chicago was a propitious site so far as Lincoln's 
chances were concerned. The enthusiasm of the Illinois 
people in the convention was not manufactured. In no 
sense was it simulated and its spontaneity was no small 
matter in its potency. Chicago streets spoke for "Honest 
Abe;" he was one of the country. On those streets he had 
listened to the sophistry of Doug-las, and from them he had 
gone forth to meet the "Little Giant." All this genuine 
interest was not lost upon the convention. Seward's 
friends were as fully devoted to the candidacy of their idol, 
but much of their enthusiasm had the appearance of be- 
ing forced. Little doubting the nomination of their chief, 
thev sought to impress his worth in a most unworthy 
manner. A writer of note has put it well: "So far as the 
effect was concerned, it was indifferent to what extent the 
importunatel}^ loud enthusiasm of the players was genuine. 
As their spectators did not share it. they appeared to them 
only like so many puppets in buskins who may indeed win 
applause but can never warm up an audience."* 

But mere locality was not to be the deciding factor, 
for it alone never could have defeated Seward nor nomi- 
nated Lincoln. Subtler influences were at work. 

A shrewd observer might have noted from the begin- 
ing that it was an impossibility to have nominated the 
New York statesman. He had been so long in politics 
that he divided his party when it came to matters of 
personal consideration. The ultra Abolitionists disliked 
him because of his speech of Feb. 29, 1860, while the 
most unyielding of them looked upon him as being a 
second Webster. On the other hand, the conservatives 
repudiated him because of his radical doctrines — par- 
ticularly that of the "higher law." Though he was an 
able man and a good man, his words were too greatly 
common property and he had ostentatiously paraded his 
candidacy in public for months. Moreover, he was care- 
less for a politician, while no braver than others who were 
more favored — certainly not than he who thundered forth 
the dogma of the "house-divided-against-itself." 

Horace Greeley opposed him. This was not necessarily 
a fatal blow; it was a hard one. Greeley was a strong man 
in influence, and his motives were unquestioned. Some of 

*von Hoist. 



87 

Seward's friends have fallen into the error of denouncing 
this opposition as pure spite.* This is a mistake. No 
piece of spite-work could have turned the nomination in 
that convention; but its confidence in Greeley made his 
opposition effective. Whatever may have been Greeley's 
motives, the student may be certain that he was alarmed 
over the prospect of Seward's nomination, and this actuated 
his hostility. 

Seward was a politician. He had always been a 
radical party-man, and had sat chief mourner through 
the wake of the Whig- party. Thurlow Weed stood in his 
shadow, and New York politics were not noted for their 
purity. Would it do for the party of high idea, of un- 
doubted morality to win its first election under the leader- 
ship of a machine-politician? True, in this respect, 
Cameron and Seward were far different, but would the 
public eve be very conscientious about noticing the 
difference? 

Lincoln, also, was a politician, but of a type so unique 
and refreshing that none of the objections applicable to the 
case of Seward, affected him in the least. The common 
opinion, so far as it went, did not identify him as part and 
parcel of the machine. His politics were of the most con- 
summate kind. He had proved this in his handling of 
Douglas, and in his utterances upon the issues 'which now 
so completely engaged the attention of the convention. 
But even had he been a politician of the stamp of Seward, 
his chances would have been better than Seward's were, 
because he had not been long enough in public life to make 
those implacable enemies which alwaj-s rise in the path of 
the ambitious and widely known professional politician. 

But beyond all this comparatively negative influence 
was a positive one. There were two states whose decisions, 
(given in the preceding October, just before general 
election) were to be of prime importance in the coming 
contest. These were Pennsylvania and Indiana. Each 
was to elect a Governor, and each one's candidate for this 
honor came to Chicago to defeat Seward; wherein lay a 
curious proof of the insidiousness of political sophism. 
To his everlasting honor, Win. H. Seward, as Governor of 
New York, refused to be unjust in the administration of 

*For a good example see North American Review, Vol. 124 p. 226. 



88 

affairs, when asked to be so, because of the wide-spread 
antipathy to Roman Catholicism. This standing - upon 
principle weakened him in the convention, for too many 
Native-Americans voted in the October states to risk the 
candidac} T of Seward. Lane and Curtin both declared 
themselves defeated if the New York Senator were chosen, 
and with Pennsylvania and Indiana in the Democratic 
ranks, little hope of Republican victory in November 
would be left. The lig-ht of Histon^ shows that for all the 
devotion of friends, the record of statesmanship, the 
prestige of fame, Wtn. H. Seward was an impossible 
candidate from the very beginning. No one man, nor one 
dozen men defeated him. The circumstances and the logic 
of necessit}" Overthrew him. He could thank himself 
largely for his failure. 

But Seward defeated, might not have meant Lincoln 
necessaril) T successful; i. e. in the opinion of the delegates. 
They immediately cast about for other names than either 
of these. The Pennsylvania contingent was powerful, and 
a bit of secret history b) T Carpenter and McClure shows 
that Cameron and Judge McLean were before Lincoln in 
the choice of this delegation — and the possibility that 
Bates might get the nomination was what lifted Lincoln 
to third place in the choice of the delegates. After the first 
ballot, when it was seen that Seward had no likely chance, 
the Pennsylvania men retired from the convention, and, 
contrary to the previous decision upon Judge McLean, one 
of their number immediatel y proposed the name of Abraham 
Lincoln. The proposition was adopted and thus Lincoln's 
nomination became virtuall}- certain; a certainty which 
was rendered into History when the delegation went back 
into the convention. Nor was the nomination of Lincoln 
hap-hazard. It has been the fashion to declare Ins 
election hasty, thoughtless, and a piece of providential 
recklessness. Never was there greater mistake. In the 
ultimate analysis of conditions, Abraham Lincoln, and he 
alone, was the logical candidate. That writer* (a better 
student of Shakespeare than of statesmanship) who 
declared Lincoln uncultivated, and untrained for the task 
thrust upon him, but courted of him, gave utterance to a 
belief very extended for years, and not entirely changed to 

♦Richard Grant White. See North American Review, Vol. 124, pp. 225-226. 



89 

this da}-. Only a few years since, one of England's most 
keen political observers expressed this view of Lincoln: 

[The first election of Lincoln] " was a characteristic instance of 
the natural working of such a government [presidential] upon a 
great occasion. And what was that working? It may be summed 
up — it was government by an unknown quantity. Hardly anyone in 
America had any living" idea what Mr. Lincoln was like, or any 
definite notion what he would do. * * * * Mr. Lincoln, it is true, 
happened to be a man, if not of eminent ability, yet of eminent 
justice. There was an inner depth of Puritan nature which came 
out under suffering, and was very attractive. But success in a 
lottery is no argument for lotteries. What were the chances against 
a person of Lincoln's antecedents, elected as he was, proving to be 
what he was?"* 

It is useless to comment upon this style of thought 
farther than to observe that the distinguished critic fails 
to comprehend the economy of the presidential system — 
particularly as it was illustrated in the case of Lincoln. 
It was not government b} T an "unknown quantity" for 
the very men who knew Lincoln best secured his nomination 
and these men were representatives of the people with the 
power to exercise their sense in serving their constituency ; 
and as for his "antecedents," it may be said that the 
best rulers and thought-moulders have not been dependent 
upon "antecedents" for success in their missions. Wm. 
H. Seward was not an "unknown quantity" nor did he 
lack excellent " antecedents," and had an English con- 
stituency been the ones to decide the question they would 
have made him the candidate ; vulnus immedicabile. No, 
a deeper meaning attaches itself to the choosing of 
Abraham Lincoln. Not only was he a statesman, but he 
was also a consummate politician, and had strained every 
nerve for the sake of political preferment. Where he was 
known he was appreciated, and he was not greatl}* known 
before his debate with Douglas simply because he was a 
Whig politician living in a Democratic State. The close 
student of Lincoln's life sees that no man of his day had 
subjected himself to a more severe training in public affairs. 
Though quiet, his schooling in such matters was none the 
less rigorous. y 

The enthusiasm kindled by old Dennis Hanks before 
the Illinois state convention in 1860, did not arise out of a 
purely vulgar idea of political worth. It differed much 



*Bagehot, The English Constitution and Other Political Essays, pp. 9S-100. 



90 

from the homage paid to Jackson's corn-cob pipe. It was 
not because Abraham Lincoln split rails that he was 
applauded by the rugged sentiments of the humbler classes 
— it was because, being one of them, he brought to the 
problem of the hour the same energy, devotion, and com- 
mon sense he displayed in all the walks of life. Judge 
Tracey, of California, put the sentiment into words when 
he said at a ratification meeting held at Cooper Institute, 
June 8, 1860: "We wage no war upon the South. We 
merely mean to fence them in (pointing significantly to a 
rail exhibited on the platform) ; this is all we propose to 
do to stop the extension of slavery, and Abe Lincoln has 
split the rails to build the fence. " 

The country was amazed at the turn of events because 
it was misinformed as to the inner history of the hour. 
Seward was so prominent that he eclipsed all other men in 
the public mind. This is why the Nation was surprised ; 
not that Lincoln was nominated, but that Seward was 
defeated. 

To the student of American political history from 1858 
down to the time of the convention, it does not appear 
strange that both events took place, but it would have been 
exceedingly strange had the nomination gone to Bates, 
or to McLean, or to Cameron. For two years Lincoln had 
gotten mentioned with Seward, and no other Republicans 
were so prominent as they. Moreover, it was morally 
certain that the Northern Democracy was to put forth 
Douglas. If so, who else but Lincoln would be his logical 
opponent? 

Nor can it be held that Lincoln was in any sense 
picked up as second choice. Granted that he was not a 
famous man previous to 1858 ; granted that he was without 
the benefit of parliamentary drill in Congress ; granted 
that he was not more than a party leader in his own state ; 
granted that the debate of Douglas made him famous, and 
that his Cooper Institute Speech turned fame into powerful 
influence ; all this means nothing if we cannot see, back of 
it, the honest will, the lofty-toned conceptions of right, 
the ambitious longings which made possible the successful 
opposition to Douglas, and the persuasive power of the 
speech at the Institute. If it be claimed that the Douglas 



91 

debates and the Institute oration gave Lincoln the can- 
didacy in 1860, it is well to ask what this candidate was 
doing - before these debates and this oration were created. 
In enumerating- the causes of the failure of Jefferson 
Davis, a famous historian of the South* names that 
person's deficiencies, and in so doing gives a remarkably 
true outline of Lincoln's elemental characteristics which 
made for his success throughout his entire career. This 
writer says: 

"The especial qualifications of a great leader in the circum- 
stances in which Mr. Davis was placed would have been strong - and 
active common-sense, quick apprehension, knowledge of men, and 
a disposition to consult the aggregate wisdom of the people, and to 
gather the store of judgment from every possible source of practical 
advice within its reach." 

Exacth*! the "strong and active common sense" which 
characterized the debates and speeches that Lincoln made 
subsequent to 1858; "the quick apprehension" of the subtle 
sophism of "squatter sovereignty;" the "knowledge of 
men" which enabled him to influence them, and to open 
their minds to his exposition of this sophism; and the "dis- 
position to consult the aggregate wisdom of the people, 
and to gather the store of judgment from every possible 
source of practical advice within its reach" made Abraham 
Lincoln the strongest and onh r possible candidate with the 
master-minds of the convention. Though an "unknown" 
man in many a Northern household, he was a specially 
well known man to such influential delegates as Field, and 
Curtin, and Lane, and Davis, and he was by no means 
"unknown" to the convention which nominated him. The 
consummate force of his political speeches, since 1858, 
made converts in ever}' cross-road over the North, and the 
man who had whipped Douglas in debate before the "Little 
Giant's" own constituency was instinctively felt to be the 
man who could measure strength with him for the Presi- 
dency when it was shown that Seward was altogether out 
of the question. A study of the ballotings proves this. 
Pettis gauged aright the sentiment of the Pennsylvania 
delegation in that pregnant ten minutes conference when 
McLean was dropped, and the Pennsylvania delegation 
never could have turned the tide in Lincoln's favor had 
men not been ready to accept him. It is true that all this 

*Pollard. 



92 

was done in the whirl of excitement, and the vast building- 
shook under the roar of the tempest within — but it is to be 
remembered that Seward's friends were as devoted as 
Lincoln's and his support from them at least as spon- 
taneous, even if it did appear forced. It was -not a stam- 
pede such as occurred for Pierce in the Democratic conven- 
tion of 1852. The first ballot betrayed Seward's fatal 
weakness, and, paradoxical as it may seem, the intense 
excitement attending - the casting of the second and third, 
the tremendous applause which followed them, betokened 
deliberate choice — only time was needed to show that the 
intuitive detection of Seward's weakness; his instantaneous 
rejection; and the immediately following selection of 
Abraham Lincoln were logical steps in a drama, the issues 
of which were" to rest on no caprice of politics or uncertain- 
ty of chance. 



The last Annual Message of President Buchanan, 
which he submitted to Congress Dec. 4, 1860, was a dis- 
appointing one in almost every feature. It met neither the 
approval of the North nor the demands of the South. The 
North had the right to expect a Message of no uncertainty 
— the South looked to Buchanan as her ally and co-worker. 
It so looked to him because all along he had been its faith- 
ful servant. His Administration was inaugurated by the 
Dred Scott decision, and was characterized as extremely 
pro-slavery in its dealings with the Lecompton imbroglio. 
His wing of the party had repudiated Douglas, and had 
done far more than any other agency to bring about this 
leader's overthrow. The Pennsylvania Democrat had 
never proved recreant to his Southern trust; had admin- 
istered the duties of his high office in a way particularly 
pleasing to the Southern scions of a slave-holding 
aristocracy, and now was no time for him to repudiate past 
policy. But this very thing he saw fit to do — more through 
intimation than by word. If any one doubts James 
Buchanan's love for the Union, a careful perusal of this 
Message will dissipate such scepticism. No one more 
urgently, pathetically appealed to the distracted elements of 
the country than did its pitiable, broken down, inefficient 
Executive. 



93 

In his remarkable state-paper he made a strong 
argument for a centralized government, drawn from Con- 
stitutional history and law. Its logic was irrefutable; but 
so great were his errors of judgment that this good effect 
was grievously weakened. The very opening of the Mrs- 
sage was unfortunate. To say that "The long continued 
and intemperate interference of the Northern people with 
the question of slavery in the Southern states has at last 
produced its effect. " and that "the immediate peril arises 
* * :;: '■■■ from the fact that the incessant and violent 
agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for 
the last quarter of* a century has at length produced its 
malign influence on the slaves, and inspired them with 
vague notions of freedom," was not only insulting to the 
great, free constituency at the North, but could not be 
substantiated by fact. 

. Hardly a year before Alexander H. Stephens, in a 
speech in his own state, had said: "So far from the in- 
stitution of African slavery in our section being weakened 
or rendered less secure by the discussion (of the slavery 
question) my deliberate judgment is, that it has been 
greatly strengthened and fortified," and, in October, 1858, 
Senator Hammond, of South Carolina, speaking upon the 
same question, declared: "So far, our gain has been 
immense from this contest, savage and malignant as it has 
been. Nay, we have solved already the question of eman- 
cipation, by this re-examination and exposition of the 
false theories of religion, philanthropy, and political 
economy, which embarrassed the fathers in their day, 
At the North, and in Europe, they cried havoc, 
and let loose upon us all the dogs of war. And how stands 
it now? Why, in this very quarter of a century our slaves 
have doubled in numbers, and each slave has more than 
doubled in value. " 

The next step in the Message was identical with that 
of Stephens in his famous Union speech. Clearlv the 
South had no sensible pretext for secession because of 
Lincoln's election, yet, sh< rtly after, Senator Clingman 
reiterated the charge in the United States Senate when he 
declared that the North elected Lincoln "because he was 
known to be a dangerous man; " i. e. so far as the rights of 



94 

the South were concerned. But probably the greatest dis- 
appointment for the North was to be found in the 
dogma of the Executive that the government had 
no power to coerce a rebellious state. This grant- 
ed, and anarchy was within the pale of apotheo- 
sis, na.y, was inevitable ; but the free-states men 
were not greatly surprised over the policy. Truth is, 
many anti-slavery men argreed with Buchanan on this 
point, and it was a matter of great question how far a 
rebellious commonwealth should be permitted to go. The 
widelv influential " Tribune" was to declare, in the very 
face of war, that while it " denied the right of nullification, 
yet it would admit that ' to withdraw from the Union is 
quite another matter;' that ' whenever a considerable section 
of our Union shall resolve deliberately to go out, we shall re- 
sist all coercive measures designed to keep it in.' " Phillips 
and Garrison were to take the same ground. But the 
people at the North were chagrined and humiliated that 
the Executive of the Nation should formulate the senti- 
ment in a Message to the law-making bod}' of the Nation, 
especially in a moment of such peril. Beyond this, the 
wisest Unionists perceived the sophistry of the dogma and 
regretted that a second Jackson had not written the Mes- 
sage; and these most sagacious Unionists were right. No 
contortion of History, or presumption upon it, should have 
held for a second that the builders of this government in- 
tended it to be helpless when its life was at issue. The 
law of self-preservation, so forcibly elucidated by the 
President in voicing the Southern dread of a slave insur- 
rection, was just as natural in the bosom of the Nation, 
and its execution even more binding. If the President's 
argument in behalf of a centralized government meant 
anything, it was in its application at this point. 

So far as the condemnation of the North, because of 
her disavowal of the Fugitive-Slave Law, was concerned, the 
President was correct legally. There could be no question 
of the right of the slave-owners to this protection, but here 
the Executive again strained fact. The law was as success- 
ful in its operation as an} r , and far more so than might 
have been expected. The President went at too great 
length when he averred that a want of proper execution of 



95 

the Fugitive-Slave Law upon the part of the North justified 
"revolutionary resistance to the government of the Union" 
upon the part of the South, even after "having- used all 
peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress." 
This statement proved too much, not only for the Union, 
but for the slave-holders themselves. Carried out to its 
logical ends, it would have destroyed both. 

At still another point, the Executive showed his lack 
of understanding. He mistook the temper of his people 
when he declared: "the fact is, our Union rests upon public 
opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its 
citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the af- 
fections of the people, it must one day perish — Congress 
possess many means of preserving it by conciliation; but 
the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by 
force." The very "affections" of the people had made 
possible the present crisis, and if Congress had not the 
power to act for them it was not to be found elsewhere. 
What an irony of fate repudiated this doctrine of the 
President in the four years which followed! Moreover, 
not only was this a misunderstanding of the sentiment of 
the Unionists, but the President's plea that the South, in 
possession of the Federal machinery in the disaffected 
states, would annul the power of the central government 
there, was specious, since the government could command 
from other portions of the country men with the will to 
uphold the rights of the Union when once vested with power 
so to do. 

Perhaps the most pitiable exhibition of weakness was 
shown at the close of the document. Buchanan's scheme 
of an "explanatory amendment," enforcing constitutional 
protection of slaver} r , was worse than childish; it was 
wholly destructive of that interpretation which the Nation 
was coming to demand. The great mass of anti-slavery 
men, even if they admitted "the right ot property in 
slaves in the states" where it then existed, utterly refused 
to believe that the framers of the constitution would have 
agreed with its territorial spread. Lincoln's Cooper Insti- 
tute Speech was an epitome of the growing sentiment at 
the North, and to put an "explanatory amendment" in the 
Constitution encouraging the further spread of slavery, 



96 

nay, demanding- it, was the very thing- the anti-slavery 
men were bound should not be done. The third point 
mentioned by the President, the enforcement of the Fugi- 
tive-Slave Law, was the most sensible of them all, but 
even this was too radical. The most dangerous dogma in 
the whole scheme of the "explanatory amendment" was 
formulated in a subtle manner. Under the first 'point, 
the Message called for "an express recognition of the right 
of property in slaves in the states where it now exists, or 
ni a v hereafter exist." These were pregnant words. Lin- 
coln had shown, in dealing with the Dred Scott decision, 
that the "hereafter" of slavery would not be limited to the 
territories. Douglas, also, foresaw the logical trend of the 
doctrine. That little term "hereafter" in the organic law 
of the Nation, would force the people of Illinois, or of 
Michigan, or of New York to acquiesce in the introduction 
of slavery in any free-state, provided a second Dred Scott 
decision would so rule. And why might it not? Lincoln 
had very plainly shown that such a decision would come. 
Back in 1S58 he'had uttered these ominous words: "I do not 
expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house 
to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will 
become all one thing, or all the other." Now these words 
of the Message were a loop-hole whereby it was to become 
"all the other:" Granted it were an easy thing to amend 
the Constitution, which it is not, no such "explanatory 
amendment" as Buchanan suggested could have been 
adopted. Under ordinary circumstances it would have 
been a chimerical proposition; but now, after all that 
Abraham Lincoln had said, the attempt would have 
smacked of the very essence of absurdity. 

The Message was a humiliating exposition of a struggle 
between inclination and terror. In his deeper heart, James 
Buchanan deprecated the hostile deeds of the traitors, yet 
a strong personality amongst his advisers knew full well 
how to picture to the trembling old man the horrors of 
civil strife. In his intense desire to spare such strife, the 
Executive forgot that a disgraceful policy of non-coercion 
was worse than death, for it meant death and obloquy. 

Though it cannot reverse, posterity will soften the 
judgment now passed upon this servant of the people. It 



97 

will recall the fact that more than one sturdier soul bowed 
under the storm which broke the Nation's Executive. It 
will recognize in the Message, the handiwork of many. 
Back of James Buchanan, in deep shadow, stands Jeremiah 
S. Black, the real champion of the non-coercion dog-ma. 

Buchanan was too old for his office — not in years, but 
in fact. At the age when most men are in their dotage, 
he stood at the forefront of the greatest Nation of earth, 
during the time of her sorest trial. Though possessed of 
good ability, and having an honorable record to uphold 
him. these were not sufficient to thwart the plans of a 
coierie of younger men. of a g-eneration radically different 
in thought ; for had he broken the power of his cabinet 
cabal, the early years of rebellion would not have been 
so disgraceful as they were; nor would the North have 
been so handicapped at the outset. But panic ruled the 
hour ! Later the Nation was to learn that men with rep- 
utations for clear-headedness and bravery were to make 
absurd and weak proposals for meeting the difficulty — in- 
deed the reputedly ideal Republican himself, the 
anticipated power behind the throne of the incoming 
Administration, was to form the most preposterous of all 
such proposals; all of which goes to show that the early 
months of 1861 were liable to be, and proved to be full of 
costly experiment in governmental circles. Time was 
needed first to see the struggle as it was and then to get 
ready for it. 

The cardinal fault of James Buchanan w r as neither 
hesitancy of purpose nor weakness of will. Though these 
were the apparent defects, their manifestation followed 
logically a cause more hidden. Moreover, his error lay 
deeper than a mistake of judgment. In short, he possessed 
the fatal lack which had undone so many publicists of the 
North. Like Douglas, he could not be brought to see the 
moral wrong of slavery; and to his mind, it was incom- 
prehensible that this Nation should engage in civil strife 
over such an issue. In common with many another con- 
servative, he was both pro-slavery and Union in sentiment ; 
and since he could not see the inherent disagreement be- 
tween these ideas, he could neither comprehend the struggle 
when it threatened nor oppose it when it began. Hence 



98 

he placed the responsibility of the agitation upon the 
North, and chided the South for her rebellion. But, to 
the end of his life, he was ardent in his love of the Union, 
and, during - the war, his voice gave no uncertain sound. 
If his premise were correct, his reasoning - was wrong ; for 
if slavery were a sacred right of the South, it was her dut}* 
to go the farthest end in maintaining the right. 



It is not the purpose of this study to go into detail 
concerning the history of the dark days between December, 
1860, and March, 1861. Onl}- two further salient points, 
in this history, ma}* be noted. These were (1) the Crit- 
tenden Resolutions, and (2) the Formation of Lincoln's 
Cabinet. 

"To consider the condition of the country," a House 
committee of thirty-three and a Senate committee of 
thirteen were appointed. Before these committees came 
numerous plans for conciliation and pacification — all of 
which involved them in inextricable tangle. For the 
present purpose a consideration of the Crittenden Com- 
promise is most relevant. 

The series of propositions introduced by the honorable 
Senator from Kentucky, possessed neither the virtue of a 
philosophic view of the situation, nor the ability to com- 
mand the support of the mass of Republicans. However 
desirable, (contrar}* to the language of the Compromise) 
it was not in the nature of things " that these dissentions, 
which now threaten the very existence of the Union, 
should be permanently quieted and settled b}* Consti- 
tutional provisions " intended to "do equal justice to all 
sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and 
good-will which ought to prevail between all the citizens 
of the Uuited States," which thing the resolutions aimed 
to accomplish. It was morally impossible to bring about 
harmony in such a manner after ten years of difference 
and contention over the very, point in dispute. 

Besides, in case of its adoption, there was no probabil- 
ity of the Compromise being an}*thing but a tentative 
truce. Provided Congress and the people would acquiese 
in the measures, was there any certainty that the then 
existing conditions might be perpetuated? At such a time, 



99 

uncertainty was the very element to be avoided, for men 
were seeking - satisfaction. Two great Compromises 
which every one had reason to expect would be final, had 
been ruthlessly destroyed, and the confidence of the Nation 
in such schemes amounted to but little. Senator Hale 
made a very fair summary of Northern sentiment concern- 
ing - the measures, when he said to its advocates, in open 
Senate: 

"Will you give an assurance that after the geographical line 
has been established, and run to the Pacific Ocean, or to the islands 
beyond, in the progress of time the interests of the country, or the 
demands of the party, or some new construction of the Constitution, 
may not require that that shall be abandoned? I should want to 
have some assurance upon that point before I agree at once to rec- 
ommend another geographical line. 

"I do not believe. Sir. that the remedy is to be sought there. I 
do not believe that the remedy is to be sought in new Constitutional 
provisions; but in an honest, faithful execution of the things that 
are already written in the compact and in the bond * * * But I say. 
with deference, that I think these new compacts and these amend- 
ments are the mere daubing of the wall with untempered mortar. 
They are not what is required to sustain the fabric of our 
Government. " 

Moreover, the Compromise possessed the identical 
weakness of President Buchanan's proposed " explanatory 
amendment. " It would have been folly for the free- 
states to bind themselves with an organic law admitting 
the virtue of Popular Sovereignty in the territories. 
This was the principle over which Lincoln and Douglas 
contended in their debate and the North had rejoiced in the 
triumph of Lincoln in this debate. So far as to pledge 
itself not to interfere with the institution in the states 
where it obtained, the North was bound to go and did go 
willingly. Strange as it may appear, the amendment to the 
Constitution proposed by Congress and recommended by 
President Lincoln, that slavery should not be molested 
where it was, was a most natural thing. The people of 
the North were not Abolitionists in the sense that Garrison 
and Phillips were and no one recognized this more clearly 
than did such men as the ultraist Lovejoy himself. But 
the Crittenden Resolutions went farther than the proposed 
amendment to the Constitution. Clearly to have acquiesied 
in their programme would have been to repudiate the 



100 

victory so hard-won by Lincoln and his co-adjutors in the 
conflict of the whole preceding- half decade. 

Moreover, but little would have been done had the 
North accepted the Compromise without question, for the 
extreme pro-slavery men were flushed with dreams of con- 
quest and would not have stopped short of demands which 
the North was morally bound to reject. A careful study of 
the Congressional records during- the period of debate upon 
this Compromise, shows how fully it met the desires of men 
on either side who were real controllers of events; still the 
proposition would have carried had not the ultra seces- 
sionists, by a preconcerted arrangement, refrained from 
voting for "it. Thus it is seen how wildly men clutched 
at every thing which seemed to offer a solution of the 
difficulties. The Abolitionist has chuckled over this bit 
of History for thirty-five years, and enjo}'S sneering at the 
men who were panic-stricken in the face of danger, but. it 
should be remembered, that he was ready to give over the 
Union entirely, so long as he might free his own skirts 
from the blot of slave-holding; so that the verdicts of 
humanity and of common sense are both rendered against 
him. 

But it is a matter of congratulation that the Critten- 
den compromise and kindred propositions were offered and 
discussed. History is enabled thereby to place the re- 
sponsibility where it belongs, for without the consideration 
of the compromise or the passage of the remarkable 
amendment in Congress, neither the border-states nor the 
conserative and more aggressive Western states would have 
come up to the measure of their duty. True, the final 
struggle was inevitable, but it was justifiable only after 
the utmost attempts at a peaceable settlement upon the 
part of Union-loving men. Even from the point of view 
of the Abolition of slavery such a course was necessary, 
for to have been precipitate would have but endangered 
the cause of freedom, and must have then involved it in 
defeat. The times were not propitious for the dreams of 
the ultra Abolitionists, and without a sustaining public 
opinion the attempt would have been madness. 

But, in the problem of Union-saving, hasty action 
must have been highly reprehensible. This has been, and 



101 

ever will be a Union of the states. To have refused con- 
ciliation, to have sped rough-shod over the feelings of the 
border-commonwealths and the conserative North, would 
have been to augment a divided North and to split the line 
of cleavage still wider. In the truest sense, the Civil War 
was a struggle for the Union, and the North was justified in 
raising her armies only after all reasonable concessions 
were rejected, and every honorable hope of reconciliation 
past. History must acquit the free-states representatives 
of the charge of cringing baseness and of cowardlv over- 
tures so frequently made in considering this period of the 
conflict. Nothing but the rashness of a deceived people, 
hugging- the delusion of a slave-empire to their hearts, 
calls for severest condemnation. At no other time, in the 
history of the Nation, was the North willing to grant so 
much, and at no other time did the South more wantonlv 
cast aside the opportunity of gaining her only possible 
desire. 



Never before 1860, had the people witnessed such a 
humiliating spectacle of insufficiency in high position as 
Mr. Buchanan presented. Though nominally President 
he was far from being really such. Thanks to the pressure 
of the hour. Treason was obliged to lay bare her front. 
and the servile Executive was freed from the machinations 
of Cobb and Floyd. The country breathed easier under 
the regime of Dix, and Stanton, and Holt, but their authori- 
ty was to be of short duration, and all hearts turned 
heavily to the consideration of the matter of the new- 
cabinet. Though public opinion framed an hypothetical 
council, the selection of the head of the department of 
state alone was truthfully surmised. Even here there was 
a lack of unanimity of sentiment, but the logic of events 
foreshadowed the selection of Wm. II. Seward. 

The problem before Lincoln in the choosing of his 
cabinet was a serious one; it is safe to say no more difficult 
similar task ever devolved upon a President. Under 
ordinary circumstances, the obligation is delicate enough, 
but in the present case its complexity was rendered doubly 
acute from the fact that an untried party was to assume 



102 

control of events which had demoralized the old and 
experienced one. 

Bevond this, however, rested a greater danger. In 
the problem, there was something more than the choosing 
of certain men, the rejecting of others, and the main- 
tenance of party-harmony withal. It was pre-eminentty a 
time for the assertion of principle. In no uncertain 
manner, then, would the incoming Administration have to 
impress its policy, somewhat, in the selection of the 
cabinet, Yet, Histor}* informs us that Abraham Lincoln 
practically made the selection before the morning papers 
were wet with the print of his victory. This does not 
mean that he hastily decided his policy for the task had 
been largely done long since. In his speeches previous to 
the campaign, he had expressed his views over and over 
and to these expositions, he was ready to cite all anxious 
inquirers. Nevertheless the country deemed it incompre- 
hensible that no new phases of policy were to be given out 
before the Fourth of March. The truth is, the Nation 
had not kept any kind of pace with its new Executive, and 
the men who looked, in wonder, at the selection of "this 
country-court advocate;" "this huckster in politics," were 
themselves but approaching or recovering the ground, as 
the case might be, hitherto traversed by Lincoln. Through 
a process of slow growth he had expanded, until he was 
able to meet the requirments of the hour; and this growth 
was none the less fundamental for having taken place with- 
out the realization of Lincoln himself. Therein he 
evidenced the wisdom of his selection. He came to the 
problem with a comprehensive grasp of the elements in the 
struggle between Freedom and Liberty; between Union 
and Disloyalty^. Consequently in the selection of his 
advisers, he needed most of all to be careful that they 
should conform to his policy. 

A word or two here in regard to his spirit at this time 
may not be out of place. Lincoln himself often said, half- 
jocularlv, half in earnest: "My policy is to have no policy." 
This was the key-note of his proceeding. But it must be 
understood to mean nothing like the hesitancy of James 
Buchanan. In the confusion of the hour, not only enemies 
but friends misconstrued this idea, and thereby deeply 



103 

wounded the new President. A fundamental element in 
his nature was cautiousness, which is not, at all 
times, to be construed as conservation. Seward was 
conservative, but he was not always cautious, as his 
treatment of the John Brown episode, and his pro- 
nunciamento upon the "higher law" had shown. But 
Abraham Lincoln seldom, if ever, drew any hard and fast 
line of conduct, and here was a crisis in which his habit of 
cautious hesitancy performed invaluable service. 

Again, the hour demanded an approach to the problem 
in strict fairness of spirit. A study of the Congressional 
debates at this season, discloses the fact that much of the 
misunderstanding of the time, emenated from an unfair 
judgment of men and of principles; of the latter especially. 
But Lincoln's innate love of truth whic*h caused him to 
reject extraneous matters, guided him, as well, to the 
heart of things, and taught him to rightly interpret the 
philosophy of events. With him, the problem was to 
make plain this philosophy, and in doing so he brought to 
it a rare spirit of judicial fairness. This trait impressed 
itself bv its intrinsic force, and sent Thurlow Weed back 
to New* York eased in mind and willing to trust the new 
Executive. 

But. paramount to all, was Lincoln's regard for the 
Union; with him this was a passion. His apostrophe to 
the Declaration of Independence, delivered at Beardstown, 
in 1858, was the outpouring of his inmost soul.* No 
grander words, in defense of the Union, ever fell from 
orator's lips. Through the long anti-Nebraska eon diet, 
this sentiment had been uppermost in his mind. Though 
the logic of events cast the conflict in the mold of slavery- 
discussion, and manv a man deemed this the vital issue, 
Lincoln perceived the danger to the white man, as well, 
and especially to free-government; and with as compre- 
hensive a grasp as that of Webster, took hold of the 
fundamental element in the struggle for the preservation 
of the Union. 

With the selection of his cabinet came the opportunity 
of putting his views into tangible shape. But the Nation 
persisted in misunderstanding him. It so persisted because 
it would not study the man; would not weigh his speeches. 



"See Herndon's Life of Lincoln. Vol. II. pp. 83-85. 



104 

It is easy now to blame this heedlessness; it is also clear that 
panic ruled instead of reason, and whatever of palliation 
there is grows from this fact. However, the consequences 
were none the less mortifying', and Lincoln could properly 
say nothing- beyond what he had said already. The timid in- 
quirv as to policy, the numberless hints, and the couched 
commands which flowed in upon him continually were 
annoying beyond measure. Still, he was proving 
himself to be the sagacious friend of the people ; 
so soon to be the patient servant of their needs. 
But, in the time of confusion of tongues, he clearly 
saw his duty and bravelv performed it. No prestige of 
influence or name could tempt him to transgress this duty, 
and all anxious inquirers were referred to his speeches 
already in print. He did this for two reasons; (1) any 
words of his were certain to be misconstrued by some one, 
to the positive hurt of the Union; and (2) so pregnant was 
each da} T, s histon^ that his constitutional caution led him 
to observe in silence and to weigh in peace. 0\ r er much 
talking had already done mischief, and the load would be 
great enough to bear without the fear of haunting declar- 
ations coming back mutilated or inopportune. 

It is readily seen that the successful construction of a 
cabinet was a task by no means easy of accomplishment ; 
vet, with one or two important changes, the first official 
council of Lincoln long continued. Never, since the days 
of Washington, had the principle of so combining antipo- 
dal minds been followed. One of Washington's most con- 
sumate strokes was the balance he maintained between 
Hamilton and Jefferson. His example stood alone in our 
history ; a policy feared and shunned by his successors. 
Yet, the philosophy of the formation of the first cabinet 
corresponds to the formation of that of Lincoln's. Both 
were momentous eras, and typical ; both Administra- 
tions were beset with unusual dangers ; and both Executives 
undertook their labors under the strain of criticism harsh 
and illy grounded. But, between these epochs, great 
changes in our National life took place. A remarkable 
upheaval occurred in the geology of politics, and a frown- 
ing fault displa}-ed long subdued elements of political life. 

When a sort of American sans culottism threw forth 



105 

Andrew Jackson, as a type of Democracy, he possessed the 
opportunity of a century, not alone to thwart the exclusive- 
ness of an aristocratic element, which he did ; but also to 
lift the understanding of the Democracy at once and effect- 
ively to a higher plane of being, which he did not. Great 
as were his abilities, imperious as was his will, in the ad- 
ministration of office he ruled with all the spitefulness of a 
jealous child. Drawn from the lower ranks of Democracy, 
he chose to humor its foibles and to enthrone its weak- 
nesses. And in no one thing- did he gravitate more to their 
level than in his reliance upon the coterie of kindred spirits 
to which a sneering opposition applied the epithet, 
" Kitchen-Cabinet. " His one legacy to the Nation, the 
rebuke of Nullification, is weakened by a suspicion of per- 
sonal vindictiveness. But the philosophy of his rise is the 
true one ; from crude beginnings Democracy was to learn 
its lesson of real power. Out of the hands of an austere 
Adams ; an inconsistent Jefferson ; a dangerous Jackson 
were the reins of authority snatched, to be placed with 
one who stood as a new 'type of a better Democracy than 
ever. 

The seeming- hazard (for it was such only in seeming) 
in selecting a man who had sprung from such surroundings 
increases as we unravel the thread of Lincoln's early 
history. No circumstances of boyhood life could be 
more pitiable than were his. yet here the parallelism be- 
tween him and such men as Jackson and Douglas ceases. 
The hazard in our system of governmental selection, so 
deplored by the English publicists, was well illustrated in 
the election of Jackson, but it failed to materialize when 
Douglas sought preference pleading to a like element in 
our political society. Truth is, the old type of Democracy 
had worn itself out with its absurdities, and there needed 
to be something more than earnestness of purpose coupled 
with an imperious will. The Nation quickly learned that 
Abraham Lincoln was incapable of vindictiveness, nor were 
his intuitions of the coarser grain. The mistake of a 
" Kitchen-Cabinet'* was not to be repeated. When Lincoln 
consulted with Seward, or Cameron, or Smith, or Weed, 
they foutjd him as keen as they supposed themselves to be, 
and a little more so. Though here was a man who had 



106 

been hurried from obscurity to transcendent power, it was 
already evident that no errors were to be committed which 
calm deliberation and careful understanding- might avoid. 
Blair and Welles, Chase and Seward were as antipodal 
spirits as could be held in the cabinet, yet, notwithstanding- 
some objection, they were representative men, and their 
choice not only cemented an heterogeneous party, but 
somewhat eased the mind of the distracted North. 

Thus, with the manly tact of Washington, and without 
the ostentatious simplicity of Jackson, but with a truer 
one, Abraham Lincoln successfully re-inaugurated the 
policy of a comprehensive cabinet, and maintained the 
wishes of the mass of the free-states people, by providing 
for them satisfactory representation in his official house- 
hold. It boots little in opposition to this view that the 
Nation, much more the politicians, failed to wholly com- 
prehend the meaning of each selection ; with the people, it 
was to be a growth in knowledge — through the wean" 
weeks of the Sumter episode they learned the lesson well, 
and it adds to his fame that this keen, earnest, high-souled 
man best of all saw the exigencies of the time, and provided 
for them in the masterlv selection of his cabinet. 



It is not within the province of this essay to give an 
exhaustive account of President Lincoln's Administration 
— nor can even a full summary be ventured upon. Such a 
pleasant duty would involve more time and more space 
than can be spared now and here. Only the two or three 
most salient points in his policy of Union-saving may be 
touched ; together with something of an inquiry into the 
certain elements of character which made for his success 
in the mighty mission Providence and a loving people 
imposed upon him. 

In the mind of the superstitious, the departure of 
Lincoln for the Nation's capital must have seemed ominous. 
To such, the dark day; the driving clouds; the hurried rain; 
the anxious company might readily have typified a broader 
stage; a darker season; a more perturbed people. But 
there were happy omens also ! Ere leaving them, Lincoln 
paused a moment to look into the upturned faCes of his 
fellow-townsmen. As he gazed, the scene broadened so 



107 

that he saw there the whole anxious North, and, touched 
by the emotion their dependence inspired, he commended 
them as well as himself to the care of the great Cod who 
had assisted the fathers. Said he, speaking- further: "I 
now leave, not knowing when or whether ever 1 may re- 
turn, with a task before me greater than that which ever 
rested upon Washington. " It was a significant fact that 
here was a man going forth to his duty with two essential 
thing-s clearlv fixed in his mind; without which he could 
not have been representative of the people in their needs. 
He had a knowledge which was at least not disposed to un- 
derestimate the importance of his task, and a desire to trust 
in divine Power to accomplish it. The spurious Executive 
at the South hastened to his seat of authority with airy 
predictions of success and abundant confidence in his own 
sufficiency. But upon Lincoln the burden rested heavily, 
and to him, as to few others, it presented itself in something 
like its true proportions. It is not possible to overvalue 
this clear comprehension of things, for during his tour he 
met hostile legislatures and incredulous crowds; but his 
eminent common sense, lack of rancor, and hopefulness 
made ineffaceable impressions, while his speechs, reserved 
in tone, inspired confidence that the Union was to have an 
Executive gifted with enough force of character to stand 
by his personal convictions. Then, too, the remarkable 
knowledge of human nature which he possessed showed 
itself to immense advantage during this tour to Washing- 
ton; as for instance in his reply to Mayor Wood, of Xew 
York City,* anil in his speech to the members of the New 
Jersey Legislature t 

As to policy, in some of the speeches made while en 
route Lincoln foreshadowed his intentions—yet, what he 
said was calculated primarily to give a general feeling of 
assurance rather than to be specific. He said enough to 
convince the people of the silliness of what some of them 
were still inclined to fancy; that he was an ignorant boor, 
dangerous more through his lack of capacity than for other 
reasons, and yet he spoke not enough to embarrass the ad- 
ministration of his office when he should enter upon it. 

The one thing noticeable above all others in these 
speeches is his ardent devotion to the Union, and the con- 

*Sei> Lincoln's Works, Vol. t, pp 
See Lincoln's Works, Vol. c, pp. 688-689. 



108 

fidence that the people were ready to stand by their chosen 
servant in his defense of that Union. Indeed, his referen- 
ces to this matter are peculiarly touching- and eloquent. 
They were not the ebullition of the hour ; they came from 
the farthest depths of his great soul, where, for years, 
they had been gathering force and character. Thus, he 
said in reply to Ma}^or Wood : 

" In my devotion to the Union I hope I am behind no man in the 
Nation. As to my wisdom in conducting affairs so as to tend to the 
preservation of the Union. I fear too great confidence may have been 
placed in me. I am sure I bring a heart devoted to the work. There 
is nothing that could ever bring me to consent— willingly to consent 
—to the destruction of this Union (in which not only the great city 
of New York, but the whole country, has acquired its greatness), 
unless it would be that thing for which the Union itself was made. 
I understand that the ship is made for the carrying and preservation 
of the cargo ; and so long as the ship is safe with the cargo, it shall 
not be abandoned. This Union shall never be abandoned, unless the 
possibility of its existence shall cease to exist without the necessity 
of throwing passengers and cargo overboard. So long, then, as it is 
possible that the prosperity and liberties of this people can be pre- 
served within this Union, it shall be my purpose at all times to pre- 
serve it." 

But his route carried him to places of greater historic 
interest. On February 22, he stood in Independence Hall, 
Philadelphia, and made what is generally supposed to be 
most significant speech of the whole journey. This claim 
may be questioned,* but his utterances then were unusually 
full of deep meaning. In the course of his speech he said: 

•• I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing in 
this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriot- 
ism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions 
under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my 
hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. 1 can 
say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain, have 
been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the senti- 
ments which originated in and were given to the world from 
this hall. I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring 
from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence." 

But the student can hardly cull from these speeches 
the true history of the times, since the broad currents of 
thought and purpose were hidden. Lincoln's duty was to 
look the crisis squarely in the face, and yet with pacific 
words to ease the anxiety of the people, if this might be 
done. It is true that no man calculated the trend of present 



*Cf. with Speech to Indiana State Legislature ; Lincoln's Works, Vol. I, pp. 673-674 



109 

opinion more shrewdly than he, while at the same moment, 
he sought to build hope upon the things of the past. 
Though they themselves were frightened, the people 
expected him to remain cool, and without a superior con- 
fidence in the genuineness of our institutions any man in 
his place must have failed ignominiouslv. 

The truth is, at this very time the Nation was in a 
tearful state. The old Union for which Webster had so 
eloquently pleaded was already broken. Until it was well- 
nigh too late, the cruel impudence of the South had con- 
trolled the will of the North. Slavery sat as the tutelary 
goddess over every cotton-field; and before her shrine, 
politician, priest, President were bowed. She had ealled 
forth three Executives, only to cast them off for their 
fawning meniality. She laughed at the trade-blinded 
temporizers of the land, and cursed the conscience-goaded 
Abolitionists of the North. She blotted sumptuary laws 
all over the Nation's statute-books; she appropriated the 
wealth of the people for her own borders; she overthrew 
the great Webster and crushed the peaceful Cla} T ; she tore 
Kansas limb from limb, and spat upon Buchanan's aged 
hand because of its slowness; she plotted treason in the 
very halls where Freedom's altars were consecrated; she 
scorned the compromises of the North and mocked its 
aroused sentiment; she sneered at its solicitude for the 
Union, and defied its power to preserve the Nation; she 
brought low the sacred confidence in the Nation's highest 
tribunal, and used Jackson's protege, Roger Brook Taney, 
as a mouth-piece, through which she spewed her defiance 
of God's truth, her hatred of freedom, and her slander of 
souls immeasurably purer than she possessed; she pressed 
the Nation's feet to brink, into the very flood of disunion, 
and, when the North shuddered, thrust deep the dagger of 
disloyalty, and left the Union's helpless form to re\i\e as 
best it might. Such were the conditions which Lincoln was 
called upon to face. The North was paralyzed; the South 
defiant. No great voice inspired much of hope. Even 
Douglas had not taken the patriotic stand he afterwards 
assumed. Under these discouraging- circumstances Lincoln 
stepped forth before the Nation to deliver his Inaugural 
Address. What he said upon this occasion is of the deepest 



110 

interest to the student of his career and times, for it marks 
an epoch in the Nation's life. The policy laid down in the 
first Inaugural grew from the necessity of the hour. By 
her reckless action, South Carolina had marked out a plain 
path for the new Executive to follow in. Would he have 
the good judgment to do so? 

Our history had been making- at such a rapid pace 
during- the preceding- months that many leaders of the 
people had lost their wit; thoug-h there was hardly a man 
without his peculiar panacea for the evils which threat- 
ened. Up to this time there had been no concert of action. 
The Chicago convention had framed a platform which 
dealt almost altogether with the matter of the non-exten- 
sion of slavery, and the campaign orators had drilled this 
conception into the hearts of the people. The Con- 
gressional record, were fairly crammed with nervous speech- 
es upon the issue, and the Democratic party had choked 
to death on this very apple of discord. But, by the events 
of a day, all this was changed. Actual secession had 
raised its horrid front, and the real issue stood out clear 
and unmistakable — to him who interpreted aright the 
oracles of the hour! Now it became evident that Lincoln 
uttered no idle speculation when he told his neighbors that 
his task was the greatest which had ever devolved upon a 
President. The house was fearfully "divided-against- 
itself." The question was how long should it stand! 

Although the problem looks plain enough to us it was 
far from being so to many of that day. Upon the question 
of the extension of slavery the South was a unit, while the 
North was divided. Upon the question of the coercion^of 
a rebellious state the South had no difference, while the 
North broke out in factious quarrel. Let the issue be put 
upon the side of slavery, and the South would be invincible ; 
let it be put upon the side of Union, and the North, with 
many at the South, would be a unit. All this seems simple 
now ; but the great problem with Lincoln was how to deal 
with these factions so as to obtain their maximum amount 
of support with the minimum of resistance. 

Lincoln had been elected as a anti-slavery man.* His 
great reputation had been made on his anti-slavery record, 
and those who were fair with him knew that he hated 



*See Morse's Life of Lincoln, Vol. I, pp. 227-228. 



Ill 

slavery from the depths of his soul. Moreover, his party 
was an anti-slaver)' part)* ; its only logical right to be lay 
in its anti-slavery tenets. Men knew this when they elected 
it to power, and these men were the majority at the North. 
The most natural thing- for many a ruler would have been 
to argue thus : "Slavery is the root of this evil weed of 
disunion. Strike the root and the weed must die. Lop 
off the leaves and the effort will come to worse than 
naug-ht! "' Hundreds of thousands of people were reasoning- 
in this way, and, no doubt, Lincoln so reasoned within his 
own heart. It would not have done to alienate this body 
of men — they needed to be arg-ued from their position ; and 
the argument which was to win them would not be so much 
of words as of deeds. To do this, Lincoln appealed most 
adroitly to another body of thinkers. There was a very 
important and numerous class of citizens at the North who 
had either taken little interest in the anti-slavery contro- 
versv or who held views decidedly antagonistic to those of 
Lincoln and his party. Their sympathies were not enlisted 
upon the side of the African. But their love of Union was 
strong - , and with proper handling- mig-ht be worked into 
deed. The great thing- to be accomplished was the getting- 
of their support in the coming- contest. No plea in reg-ard 
to the non-extension of slavery could win their support ; 
no dilating- upon the intent of the fathers, so far as citizens 
of color were concerned, could have the least influence, but 
a negative one, with them. These men Lincoln knew. 
He had met them all throug-h his career. Back in the 
woods of Illinois, out on the prairies, down in Washington. 
in southern Ohio, in the East ; wherever he had g-one he 
came in contact with this element. The golden opportunity 
for securing- their sympathy had come, and because he knew 
this class thoroughly, with consummate skill Abraham 
Lincoln seized the opportunity and used it to its farthest 
extent. Consequently, the student finds comparativelv 
little in the Inaug-ural touching- the matter of slavery, but 
it is worthy of careful note that whatever is said is of such 
a character that the South should have been re-assured. 
According- to her predictions, a Republican President, of 
necessity, would have to deal to her " sacred institution " the 
blows of death, but Lincoln did nothing of the kind, lie 



112 

went to the limit in upholding- their rights and in ac- 
knowledging - the sorrow he felt over the violations of the 
Fugitive-Slave Law. He assured them of his intention in 
these words: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, 
to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states 
where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, 
and I have no inclination to do so." 

From a brief discussion of slavery, the President 
hurried on to take up the question of secession. Here, 
with keen analysis, he showed that an attempt at disunion 
was not disunion at all, and refused to recognize the claim 
of seceded states that they were out of the Union. Rebels 
could find no hesitating policy in such language as this: 
" I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and 
the laws, the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my 
ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution expressly 
enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully 
executed in all the States. " 

The pleasing fallacy which had helped more than one 
Southern state into secession was well summed up by one 
of their politicians who claimed that better terms could be 
made " out of the Union than in it." No one knew better 
than Lincoln the unsoundness of the idea, and he took 
pains in his Inaugural to refute the argument. Concern- 
ing it he said: 

"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove 
our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassible wall 
between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of 
the presence and beyond the reach of each other: but the different 
parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to 
face. aEd intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue be- 
tween them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more 
advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? 
Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can 
treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens, than laws can 
among friends? Suppose you go to war. you cannot right 
always: and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on 
either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of 
intercourse are again upon you. " 

But it was the conclusion of the Address which dis- 
closed the best nature of the man. After telling the people 
of the South that there could be no conflict unless they 
themselves were the aggressors, he pleads with them in 



113 

such words as they had not expected to hear: 

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be 
enemies; though passion may have strained, it must not 
break our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory, 
stretching - from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to 
every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad 
land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again 
touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our 
nature. " 

Thoug-h its worth at the time was questioned, but one 
opinion of' the Inaugural holds to-day. Had Lincoln too 
much emphasized the contention over slavery; had he un- 
duly thrust before the people the mooted question of 
Popular Sovereignty, his influence would have weakened 
in direct proportion as he did so. It is a proof of his un- 
erring- statesmanship that he cast loose from the old con- 
trovers}- and took his stand by the new. It was the first 
proof to many that he understood the elements in the 
struggle. It was as far from his duty as it was from his 
nature to assume a pugna'cious attitude, nor would the 
people have sustained him in such an attitude. Yet, he 
went as far as he felt any warrant for going, and this got 
it into the minds of the people that he was a safe man. 
There was to be some waiting — Lincoln was a consummate 
waiter. There was to be some preparation — Lincoln had 
mastered the art of getting ready. There was to be wait- 
ing until the disgruntled Union elements at the North 
might fuse. The greatest danger lay in their lack of 
unanimity, but by carefully avoiding the arousing of un- 
necessary prejudice, Lincoln took the wisest possible 
course by which to bring- about their fusion. 

It is true that the most outspoken anti-slavery men 
were disappointed in the Inaugural; but they had argued 
themselves into illogical positions, and any view of sound 
statesmanship was sure to displease them. It was no fault 
of Lincoln's that they were disappointed, since there could 
have been no war for slaver}- or against it. Indeed, 
Kansas and Harper's Ferry were the nearest this is->iu' 
came to resolving itself into war. But the fact also re- 
mains that there could have been no rebellion without 
slavery. The Nation tried hard to forget this fact, and so 



114 

long - as they were in such a frame of mind, the President's 
duty was to use what leverage he could upon them. And 
the wisdom of this plan manifested itself the instant 
Sumter was fired upon. For the hour, slavery was for- 
gotten — as were all the minor issues which clustered about 
the central one. But a single thought actuated the North; 
and while this great feeling was certain to experience re- 
action, its force at the initiative was incalculable, and, 
thanks to his wise policy, Lincoln was able to draw upon 
the North for unlimited amounts of men and capital. 

But there was another problem involved in the issue, 
the importance of which appealed more strongly to the 
logical mind of Lincoln than to that of any one else. This 
was the holding of the border-states'. These states were 
undergoing the most cruel effects of the rebellion that had 
as yet been felt. Geographically, their position was such 
that they were of the utmost importance as strategic 
points. As to the Unionism of the majority of their in- 
habitants, there can be no question; but scheming politicians 
had hood-winked and bullied the people so that they were 
sorely harassed. Not only were they in a pitiable con- 
dition because of the brunt of war which came upon them 
but they were constantly being placed in an attitude of 
anomaly. So far as the question of slavery was concerned, 
there was but one sentiment amongst them. They would 
have taken instant side with the South, had it been possi- 
ble that the war was a war for the extermination of slavery. 
But, though all their sympathies in this matter were with 
the South, these people were also ardent Union-lovers, and 
no more jealous defenders of its rights lived than they. 
With the tenacity of dying men, they clung to the Union 
as their only hope. However inconsistent this may seem, 
it admits of ready explanation, for Clay and Benton, 
though dead, yet lived, and no man exerted a more power- 
ful influence than did the noble John J. Crittenden, of 
Kentucky. But beyond the influence of these statesmen a 
more potent argument rested in the fact that a breaking 
up of the Union would place the border-states on the 
ragged edge of perpetual internecine war; and they could 
see no reason why Union with slaver} T might not always 
exist. 



115 

Wise ruler that he was, Lincoln clearly perceived that 
these states must be held at almost any cost. Despite the 
entreaties of aggressive Abolitionists, the border-common- 
wealths were yet the most important parties to the contract 
of saving - the Union — consequently their opinions were to 
be respected so long- as it was possible that they could be. 

Perhaps for no other thing" has Lincoln been more 
harshly criticised than for his so called "Border-state 
Policy." His attitude brought upon his head the male- 
dictions of many at the North who thoug-ht themselves the 
purest patriots, yet before his Administration closed the 
genuineness of his policy vindicated itself. Indeed, the 
immediate effect of his Inaugural was to save these states 
to the Union. With what friendliness their people, as 
well as many through the entire North, regarded Lincoln's 
policy, may be judged by the action of the unflinching 
Crittenden, who, in July, 1861, introduced into Congress 
the following resolution (largely adopted by that body.): 

"That this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of 
oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor with 
any purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or 
established institutions of those [the revolted] states; but to defend 
and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the 
Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several states 
unimpaired." 

But it was impossible to wage the war in any quarter, 
long, before the inevitable question of slavery confronted 
both soldier and statesman. When one takes into con- 
sideration the first Inaugural and the first Annual Message 
to Congress that Lincoln made, it may seem strange that 
the Emancipation Proclamation was so soon issued. But 
events were shaping themselves in a way which no man 
clearly foresaw. Notwithstanding the criticisms of Amer- 
ican Abolitionists and of English publicists, the attitude of 
the Republican party was consistent in its determination 
not to interfere with slavery where it was — yet the policy 
of its chief was also consistent in striking the blow at 
slavery, aimed through the Emancipation Proclamation. 
Men soon saw what they did not at first anticipate; that 
though it was a struggle for the Union, it was a struggle 
in which the Union could not be preserved, except by sac- 
rificing the institution of shivery. When this idea had 



116 

been fully ingrained into the mind of the North, she could 
do naught but follow it to its logical end. But the great 
care was to understand the growth of this Abolition sen- 
timent, for any undue sympathy, the one way or the other, 
might bring fatal danger to the Union and, of course, to 
Abolition. Lincoln seemed to follow public opinion, yet 
he led it. He followed it when he abrogated the emanci- 
pation edicts of Generals Hunter and Fremont ; he led it 
when he formulated his plan of "compensated emanci- 
pation " for the sake of the border-states. 

Indeed, the latter scheme was especially dear to his 
heart, though it met with slight favor from the men for 
whose benefit it was chiefly framed, and with none at all 
from the impatient people at the North. Much has been 
said derogatory to this plan of the President. It is claimed 
that it was more flattering - to his heart than to his head. 
But there can be no question as to one thing — it secured 
the respect of the leaders in the border-states, even though 
it failed to gain their* approval, as the venerable Crit- 
tenden told the President, speaking for a group of Unionists 
from the border-commonwealths, that, whatever might be 
their final action, they all thought him solely moved by a 
high patriotism and sincere devotion to the happiness and 
glory of his country ; and, with that conviction, they 
should consider respectfully the important suggestions he 
had made.* And it would seem that the dignified attention 
of these unfortunate men would count for a deal, when we 
remember that Lincoln could hardly gain such a hearing 
from some of the most influential leaders at the North. 

Though Congress was not in sympathy with the 
President's plans of "compensated emancipation" and of 
" colonization " it passed measures friendly to these plans, f 
and waited the experiment with selfish incredulity. The 
hope of the President in these experiments was pathetic. 
This hope may seem absurd, but there were men about him 
who assured him that ' ' colonization " could be accomplished; 
that it was not an impossible physical undertaking. 
Calling together some of the representative negroes, he 
addressed them at the White House, X laying before them 
his ideas in the matter, and urging them to make the ex- 
periment. Upon trial, the plan failed ; partly through the 

*See Lincoln's Works, Vol. II, p. 135. 

tDuritijr the session of 1S62 Congress appropriated J6co,ooo for the experiment 
of colonization 

+August 14, 1862. See Lincoln's Works, Vol. II, p. 22?. 



117 

rascality of a governmental agent, and partly through its 
inexpediency. It did not have the ardent support of the 
blacks to say nothing- of the white people. 

But the appeal on the part of President Lincoln for 
"compensated emancipation " performed more valuable 
service for the cause of Union. In the first place, it 
showed that he knew where the real difficulty lay. He 
was right when he said to a body of border-state Repre- 
sentatives : 

"Let the States which are in rebellion see definitely and cer- 
tainly that in no event will the States you represent ever join their 
proposed confederacy, and they cannot much longer maintain the 
contest. But you cannot divest them of their hope to ultimately 
have you with them so long as you show a determination to perpetuate 
the institution within your own States. Beat them at elections. a> 
you have overwhelming- done, and, nothing daunted, they still claim 
you as their own. You and I know what the lever of their power is. 
Break that lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more 
forever. * * * You prefer that the constitutional relation of the 
States to the Nation shall be practically restored without disturbance 
of the institution : and if this were done, my whole duty in this re- 
spect, under the ( 'onstitution and my oath of office, would be performed. 
But it is not done, and we are trying to accomplish it by war. The 
incidents of the war cannot be avoided. If the war continues long, 
as it must if £he object be not sooner attained, the institution in your 
States will be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion by the 
mere incidents of the war. It will be gone, and you will have nothing 
valuable in lieu of it. Much of its value is gone already. How much 
better for you and for your people to take the step which at once 
shortens the war and secures substantial compensation for what is sure 
to be wholly lost in any other event ! How much better to thus save 
the money which else we sink forever in the war ! Bow much better 
to do it while we can. test the war erelong render us pecuniarily 
unable to do it ! How much better for you as seller, and the Nation 
as buyer, to sell out and buy out that without which the war could 
never have been, than to sink both the thing to be sold and t he price 
of it in cutting one another's throats? * * * You are patriots 
and statesmen, and as such I pray you consider this proposition, and 
at the least commend it to the consideration of your States and people, 
As you would perpetuate popular government for the best people in 
the world. I beseech you that you do in no wise omit this. Our 
common country is in great peril, demanding the loftiest views and 
boldest action to bring it speedy relief. Once relieved, its form of 
government is saved to the. world, its beloved history and cherished 
memories are vindicated, and its happy future fully assured and 
rendered inconceivably grand. To you. more than to any others, 
the privilege is given to assure that happiness and swell thai 
grandeur, and to link your own names therewith forever. 

Again, in his treatment of the border-states, Lincoln 



118 

showed the futility of expecting - to finish the war without 
bringing- about emancipation. This he hinted at in the 
conversation quoted from above. But there were some 
men from these states who were too blind to see that the 
inevitable result of war was the overthrow of slavery. To 
these men he spoke the words of kindly warning and, 
through them, to the greater South. 

But however generous and noble-hearted the President 
might have been, it is generally admitted that his schemes 
were impracticable. As Morse very well points out, * 
Lincoln had little capability for business, and he could 
not be brought to see the impracticability of "compensated 
emancipation " as a business proceeding. But it is no dis- 
credit to his memory when the larger fact is brought out 
that Abraham Lincoln was feeling the pulse of the Nation 
and was preparing for the great Act of Emancipation 
which followed. And this pulse became very plain to 
him. It cannot be doubted that he was ahead of the great 
mass of the people when he first drew up his Proclamation. 
This did not so seem to such Abolitionists as Greeley, 
who wrote the idiotic "Prayer of 20,000,000 of the Peo- 
ple;" but events shaped history far more readily than did 
sentiment. The time was yet ripening for the consum- 
mate stroke. 

Much has been written regarding the supreme impor- 
tance of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is held that 
this is the profoundest act of the century ; that with it 
Lincoln's greatest fame shall be associated ; and that it 
sealed the destiny of the Southern Confederacy. To all 
this, yes, if qualified in the light of logical history, other- 
wise, no ! 

In the first place, emancipation was but a means to an 
end. The war was not begun for its sake, neither did its 
proclamation constitute the central idea of the Administra- 
tion. From its limited application it was naught but a 
war-measure, and was worth simply what the Federal 
government — or rather the sovereign people of the North 
could make it. Lincoln himself did not regard it as being 
anything other than a war-measure, and realized that 
absolute emancipation could not come short of a Con- 
stitutional amendment. In fact, the President had long 



* Life of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, p. 28. 



119 

hesitated in its promulgation, for this Act would depend 
solely upon the exegencies of the strife on the battle-field. 
He showed clearly this train of thought in his marvelous 
reply to Greeley's " Prayer," where he said : 

" » * * # a s to the policy I ' seem to be pursuing,' as you say, 
I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. 

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way 
under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be 
restored, the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.' If there 
be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the 
same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those 
who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time 
destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object 
in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or 
destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any 
slave. I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, 
I would do it; and if I could -save it by freeing some and leaving 
others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the 
colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and 
what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to 
save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am , 
doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe 
doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when 
shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views as fast as they shall 
appear to be true views. 

" I have here stated my purpose according to my views of 
official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed per- 
sonal wish that all men everywhere could be free." 

In this masterly paper the President not only dis- 
comfited meddlesome anti-slavery fanatics, but also kept 
firm the purpose of the North to maintain the war as 
a fig-ht for the preservation of the Union. Such a letter as 
Greeley dispatched to Lincoln would have deceived some 
men, but had the President coincided with the views of the 
erratic editor, it must have become immediately apparent 
that the " Pra}*er " did not emenate from the hearts of 
" 20,000,000," or from one tenth of that number. 

Lincoln's position was irrefutable. Unless he could 
insure the maintenance of the Constitution by an expres- 
sion favorable to Abolition, there existed not the slightest 
warrant for the making- of one. He was rig-lit in holding- 
that any personal sentiments upon the issue were irrelevant, 
and extremely likely to produce disaster. The fact is 
Abraham Lincoln was the most safe President this Nation 
has ever had, unless it be the first, for the simple reason 



120 

that he understood human nature, and the philosophy of 
events— he understood this philosophy far better than most 
of the people, and he knew the people better than they 
knew themselves. To simple-minded men the problem re- 
solved itself quite readily, but the President was putting 
as hard study upon the matter as he ever indulged in. 
His old judicial habits asserted themselves. But with him 
it was not an argument in equity; it was a step in policy. 
Thus, he said to a body of clergymen who waited upon 
him:* 

•'The subject is difficult, and good men do not agree. For in- 
stance, the other day four gentlemen of standing and intelligence, 
from New York, called as a delegation on business connected with 
the war: but, before leaving, two of them earnestly beset me to pro- 
claim general emancipation, upon which the other two at once 
attacked them. You know also that the last session of Congress had 
a decided majority of anti-slavery men. \et they could not unite on 
this policy. And the same is true of the religious people. Why. 
the rebel soldiers are praying with a great deal more earnestness. I 
fear, than our own troops, and expecting God to favor their side: for 
one of our soldiers who had been taken pris <ner. told Senator Wil- 
son a few days since that he met with nothing so discouraging as the 
evident sincerity of those he was among in their prayers. But we 
will talk over the merits of the case. 

"What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do. 
especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document 
that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like 
the Pope's bull against the comet. Would my word free the slaves, 
when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel states? Is 
there a single court, or magistrate, or individual that would be in- 
fluenced by it there? And what reason is there to think it would 
have any greater effect upon the slaves than the late law of Con- 
gress, which I approved, and which offers protection and freedom to 
the slaves of rebel masters who are within our lines? Yet I can- 
not learn that that law has caused a single one to come over to us. * * 

"Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good 
would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? 
Understand, I raise no objections against it on legal or Constitutional 
grounds, for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time 
of war I suppose I have a right to take any measure which will best 
subdue the enemy; nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in 
view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the 
South. I view this matter as a practical war measure, to be decided 
on according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

"I admit that slavery is the root of the rebellion, or at least its 
sine qua non. The ambition of politicians may have instigated them 
to act. but they would have been impotent without slavery as their 

*Sept. 13, 1862. 



121 

instrument. I will also concede that emancipation would help us in 
Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more 
than ambition. I grant, further, that it would help somewhat at 
the North, though not so much. I fear, as you and those you repre- 
sent imagine' Still, some additional strength would be added in that 
way to the war, and then, unquestionably, it would weaken the 
rebels by drawing off their laborers, which is of great importance; 
but I am not so sure we could do much with the blacks. If we were 
to arm them. I fear that in a few weeks the anus would lie in the 
hands of the rebels: and. indeed, thus far we have not had arms 
enough to equip our white troops. I will mention another thing, 
though it meet only your scorn and contempt. There are fifty 
thousand bayonets in the Union armies from the border slave States. 
It would be a serious matter if. in consequence of a proclamation such 
as you desire, they should go over to the rebels. I do not think they all 
would— not so many, indeed, as a year ago. or six months ago not 
so many to-day as yesterday. Every day increases their Union feel- 
ing. They are also getting their pride enlisted, and want tp beat the 
rebels. Let me say one thing more: I think you should admit that 
we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, 
in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. This is a 
fundamental idea going down about as deep as anything. 

" Do not misunderstand me because I have mentioned these ob- 
jections. They indicate the difficulties that have thus far prevented 
my action in some such way as you desire. I have not decided 
against a proclamation of liberty to the slaves, but hold the matter 
under advisement: and I can assure you that the subject is on my 
mind, by day and night, more than any other. Whatever shall ap- 
pear to be God's will. I will do. I trust that in the freedom with 
which I have canvassed your views, I have not in any respect injured 
your feelings." 

In this reply we catch a glimpse of Lincoln's tendency 
to argue away his side of the question — save in one or two 
particulars. It almost seems as though he were reasoning 
with his doubts. His independence of mind and character 
is shown by the fact that at this ver}~ time the Emancipa- 
tion Proclamation in rough lay underneath the lid of his 
desk, and he had practically become decided as to its 
issue — the great question was, When ? 

On September 22, 1862, President Lincoln issued his 
" Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, " "which gave 
formal notice that unless the Southern States yielded 
allegiance to the Union within a hundred days thereafter, 
he should declare the slaves within their limits free." 
The immediately following elections justified the Execu- 
tive's hesitancy. He had issued the measure at a most 
precarious moment, for the people at the North were far 



* Wilson, "Division and Reunion." p. 227. 



122 

from being- a unit in the matter. At once, the powerful 
Democracy raised the unpleasant cry that the Administra- 
tion had switched from Unionism to Abolitionism ; and 
the cry had its effect. Only New England, the states of 
the Mississippi Valley, and California and Oregon held 
firmly to their faith. It could not be doubted that the 
Administration was dealt a stinging blow ; but the crisis 
was past. Lincoln acknowledged that if the Proclama- 
tion had been issued six months before it would have re- 
sulted in failure. Thus we may know how closely he 
studied men and events — how right he was in considering 
emancipation but a step towards Union. 

But one of the greatest accomplishments of the Proc- 
lamation lay in the proof it gave of the vindication of 
the President's "Border-state Policy." These common- 
wealths stood gallantly by Abraham Lincoln, and their 
votes actually saved the Administration in Congress. By 
his common sense dealing with the border-states Lincoln 
had won their confidence and "had saved the party whose 
leaders had turned against him."* 

Though it was a wonderful thing to do, it cannot 
rightly be claimed that the emancipation of 4,000,000 blacks 
was the consummate act in Lincoln's career. It was the 
hard "hit" at the "thing" which, as a boy standing in 
the slave-mart at New Orleans, he swore to deliver if he 
should ever have the chance. It was an act which filled 
his soul with keen pleasure. It, of itself, was sufficient to 
cause the memory of his name to endure as long as men 
love liberty and hate bondage. But its transcendent glory 
lays in the fact that through it the struggle for the Union 
was destined to be successful. Without it, our position 
would have been anomalous in the eyes of Europe. With- 
out it, an aroused home-sentiment would have lapsed into 
unconcern, then disgust, then hostility. 

But, in its consummation, as great skill was shown by 
deference as by action. Its effect was calculated with a 
nicety which rendered its promulgation powerful for good; 
and its issue was at the time which proved to be the turn- 
ing-point of the crisis. The time element involved was 
recognized, by the intuition of Lincoln, as being the most 
mportant of all, for the abstract question was sure to be 



* Morse ; Life of Lincoln, Vol. II, p. 125. 



123 

met and decided affirmatively- But, coming - as it did. and 
when it did, the Proclamation was a blow from which the 
Confederacy could never recover. 

But, more than all else, it laid low the tendency of the 
North to compromise. One ma}' be sure that when Abra- 
ham Lincoln discarded this method of settling- a dispute, 
its usefulness amounted to about nothing. Gradually the 
people perceived this — and it held them during the dark 
days of 1862-1863, when a cowardly Democracy saw written 
on every side naught but "failure." 

Thus, on the grounds of sensible policy, Lincoln was 
able to defend his measure — for it ever had its bitter 
enemies — and here is an example of how he did it. August 
25, 1863, he wrote to a convention at Springfield, Illinois, 
styling themselves " Unconditional Unionists," in part as 
follows: 

" Hon. James C. Conkling, 

" My Dear Sir: — Your letter inviting me to attend a mass- 
meeting- of unconditional Union men, to be held at the Capital of 
Illinois, on the 3d day of September, has been received. It would be 
very agreeable to me to meet my old friends at my own home, but I 
cannot just now be absent from here so long as a visit there would 
require. 

"The meeting is to be of all those who maintain unconditional 
devotion to the Union; and I am sure my old political friends will 
thank me for tendering, as I do, the Nation's gratitude to those and 
other noble men whom no partisan malice or partisan hope can make 
false to the Nation's life. 

"There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I 
would say: You desire peace, and you blame me that we do not have 
it. But how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable 
ways: First, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. This I am 
trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If 
you are not for it, a second way is to give up the Union. I am 
against this. Are you for it? If you are, you should say so plainly. 
If you are not for force, nor yet for dissolution, there only remains 
some imaginable compromise. I do not believe any compromise 
embracing the maintenance of the Union is now possible. All I 
learn leads to a directly opposite belief. The strength of the re- 
bellion is its military, its army. That army dominates all the 
country and all the people within its range. Any offer of terms 
made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to that 
army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men 
have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if 
one were made with them. ******** 

"But to be plain. You are dissatisfied with me about the negro. 
Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself 



124 

upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, 
while I suppose you do not, yet, I have neither adopted nor proposed 
any measure which is not consistent with even your view, provided 
you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation, to 
which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But 
I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way 
as to save you from greater taxation to save the Union exclusively 
by other means. 

"You dislike the emancipation proclamation, and perhaps 
would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional. I .think 
differently. I think the constitution invests its commander-in-chief 
with the law of war in time of war. The most that can be said — if 
so much — is that slaves are property. Is there — has there ever been 
— any question that b) r the law of war, property, both of enemies 
and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed 
whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy? 

"But the proclamation, as law, either is valid or is not valid. 
If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it cannot be 
retracted any more than the dead can be brought to life. Some of 
you profess to think its retraction would operate favorably for the 
Union. Why better after the retraction than before the issue? 
There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the re- 
bellion before the proclamation issued; the last one hundred days of 
which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless 
averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance. The war 
has certainly progressed as favorably for us since the issue of the 
proclamation as before. I know as fully as an3 r one can know the 
opinion of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the 
field, who have given us our most important successes, believe the 
emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the 
heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of 
these important successes could not have been achieved when it was 
but for the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding 
these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is 
called Abolitionism, or with Republican party politics, but who hold 
them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions as being 
entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that 
emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military meas- 
ures, and were not adopted as such in good faith. 

"You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them 
seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you, then, ex- 
clusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose 
to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have con- 
quered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue 
fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare you will not 
fight to free negroes. 

"I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever 
extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it 
weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differ- 
ently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, 
leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do in saving the Union. 



125 

Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, 
act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will 
do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us they must be 
prompted by the strongest motive, even the promise of freedom. 
And the promise, being made, must be kept. 

"Peace does not appear so distant as it did. I hope it will 
come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to be worth the keep- 
ing in all future time. It will then have been proved that among- 
free men there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the 
bullet, and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their 
case and pay the cost. And then there will be some black men who 
can remember that with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, 'and 
steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on 
to this great consummation, while I fear there will be some white 
ones unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful 
speech. they strove to hinder it. 

" Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. 
Let us diligentlv apply the means, never doubting that a just God, 
in his own good time, will give us the rightful result." 



Now that we have seen how the policy of Lincoln was 
best fitted to fulfill the requirements of his selection, it is 
well to look further into his character in order that a 
clearer comprehension of the forces working- in him and 
through him for the accomplishment of the end of these 
requirements may be had. What were the elements of 
character that kept Lincoln enthroned in the hearts of his 
countrymen during- the four years of its most trying his- 
tory; which gave him the power to effect just the work 
and the right work that was essential? 

Let the answer be, first; He was a man of supreme 
honest} r . This trait was known to his earliest companions, 
but was thrown out to the world at large for the first time 
during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The same care for 
the truth which animated him in walking four miles (as 
the stor}- runs) to make good the amount to a customer 
who had overpaid at his little country-store, was the one 
which led him to recoil from the sophistries of the 
Douglasites when he made his House-divided-against-it- 
self Speech. He could no more help smiting such fallacy 
than he could help dealing fairly with his butcher; and 
this same trait invested all his acts with influence over the 
minds of the people. When politicians cried out against 
the violation of personal liberty in the suspension of 
habeas corpus, their clamor was of comparatively non- 



126 

effect because somehow the common people, down in their 
warm hearts, had a lingering- opinion that "Abe" Lincoln 
was honest in his purposes, and that be would not trespass 
upon the real liberties of the people more than necessity 
demanded. This very confidence would have put any man 
upon his honor — provided he was intrinsically honest. 
Thus Lincoln met the expectations of the people, and 
though he was hampered in its use, exercised unusual 
authority as no other man could have done. 

Likewise his honesty of purpose led him to take 
advanced ground, which for the time being- mig-ht have 
been unpopular, just as truly as it held him back from im- 
politic behavior. The strug-g-le of months broug-ht forth 
the Emancipation Proclamation but it came only after a 
severe trial upon Lincoln's part to make what he was fain 
to consider a more equitable adjustment. And it was his 
honesty of conviction which actuated him in his g-entle 
and humane policy of reconstruction. The world will de- 
clare him rig-ht in considering- the Nation a family, and 
will wholly come to applaud his magnanimous endeavors to 
protect the South from the fierce wrath of Northern rad- 
icals. As few other men saw it he perceived the cruel fate 
of the rebellious people without some powerful friend to 
lead them, and he determined to be this friend. Though 
no man knows, yet it is almost certain Abraham Lincoln's 
greatest work would have been in the reconstruction of 
the South; for in the intensity of his love for country and 
of his love for human right he believed that his work was 
not supremely accomplished when four million people were 
unshackled, but only when four million became free. 

Again, his honesty of mind gave him fixedness of pur- 
pose. Though he might rise to the highest point of feel- 
ing, when the Nation was drunk with excitement, and 
their leaders full of passion, he never lost his balance. 
Moreover, he was never careless in the handling of events 
— nor even in their contemplation. It is true that none 
could feel more deeply than he, yet none could more readily 
lay aside mere feeling when it rose in the way of duty; it 
is sometimes forgotten how brave a character is needed in 
order that this thing may be accomplished. Many a man 
is imperturbable because unaroused or unfeeling, but 



127 

Lincoln was so because he would not forget the fearful re- 
sponsibility the Nation had thrust upon him. 

Now, all this honesty of purpose had its reflex action. 
It became a part of the mind of the people — too seldom of 
the politicians — but firstly and all the time, of the great, 
freedom-loving- North; who, despite disaster and defeat, 
could be not shaken in their trust so far as to doubt the 
honesty of "Father Abraham." 

A second great influence with the people was the 
ability they saw in Lincoln to grasp the essentials of any 
problem and to put them in succinct form. The American 
public could not forget that his sayings, though homely, 
were sound, and what they needed at everv step was 
soundness of thought. Listen to some of his epigrams : 

" Let none falter who thinks he is right.'" 

" If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." 

" Come what will I will keep my faith with friend and 
foe." 

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the 
people who inhabit it." 

" God must like common people or he would not have 
made so many of them." 

"I believe this government cannot permanently en- 
dure half slave and half free." 

"Gold is good in its place, but living, brave, and pa- 
triotic men are better than gold." 

" Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature 
— opposition to it in his love of justice." 

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in 
that faith, let us to the end dare to do our duty as we un- 
derstand it." 

Moreover, the people believed that he was a safe man 
who could write thus : "I shall not do more than I can. 
but I shall do all I can to save the Government, which is 
my sworn duty as well as my personal inclination. I shall 
do nothing in malice. What I deal with is too vast for 
malicious dealing."* 

Oct. 1 ( », 1864, he said, during a speech in response to 
a serenade : "Their (the people's) will, constitutionally 
expressed, is the ultimate law for all. If they should de- 
liberately resolve to have immediate peace, oxen at the 

♦Letter to Cuthbert Bullitt. New Orleans, July 2;. 



128 

loss of their country and their liberty, I know not the 
power or the right to resist them. It is their own business, 
and they must do as they please with their own. I believe, 
however, they are still resolved to preserve their country 
and their liberty ; and in this, in office or out of it, I am 
resolved to stand by them." 

In a most natural manner these and similar expressions 
found their way into the hearts of the people, and became 
lodged there. The common sense of these epigrams and 
of these speeches gave the Nation such confidence in 
Lincoln that no amount of partisan ridicule could distract 
them in this trust. 

Again, there was an individuality about them which 
caused them to stick. Pending his re-election, the people 
took him at his word when he declared that it would be 
foolish "to swap horses while crossing the stream." 
Lincoln spoke in laconic terms because he was a profound 
thinker. By a single sentence, he would often reveal a 
world of meaning, and a few words would often settle an 
ingenious controversy. 

This force of language is one of the most wonderful 
things to be noted of Lincoln.* Though he did not enjoy 
the advantages of schooling, and though he read but little, 
what he said was not only usually free from grammatical 
error but was often couched in purest English. The 
people have unfortunately hit upon the Gettysburg Address 
as being, in the popular mind, the best representative of 
his power in the use of language — but it will be and de- 
serves to be, so long as the tongue has influence, an Eng- 
lish classic. 

Moreover, Lincoln had an exactness in the use of 
English which was truly marvelous. Thus, in his reply to 
Seward when that gentleman submitted to him "Some 
Thoughts for the President's Consideration," Lincoln's ideas 
were worded with such consummate tact that the high- 
minded Secretary became satisfied, without being angered, 
as to who was the administrator of affairs. In his cor- 
rection of Seward's diplomatic messages Lincoln probably 
saved us from at least one war with a great foreign Power. 
A comparative study of a single dispatch, that to Minister 
Adams, May 21, 1861, concerning the "neutrality" at- 

*See an article in the London Spectator, Vol. 66, pp. 628-629. 



129 

titude of Great Britian will reveal the power of discrim- 
ination Lincoln possessed in the use of words. 

But the supreme example of Abraham Lincoln s 
ability in the expression of thought is to be found in his 
Second Inaugural Address. In moral sublimity no Amer- 
ican state-paper excells this Address. If there were no 
other reason it would be remarkable in that it disclosed to 
the Nation something of the growth of its Chief- 
Magistrate. To all who looked upon Lincoln as a second 
Madison, the Address must have been a startling 
revelation. He, who so often was led by events, 
now stood before his people to lead them. His 
re-election showed the abiding confidence of that peo- 
ple in his wisdom, loyalty, and fairness. Those were days 
which took little thought of men as men. In recognition 
of this fact Lincoln had said: "I shall do my utmost that 
whosoever is to hold the helm for the next voyage shall 
start with the best possible chance to save the ship." 
Yet, when called upon a second time to assume his hig-h 
trust, this man would not look upon it as a personal 
triumph. To the philosophic student of American history, 
for the years 1864 and 1865, there is nothing of surprise in 
the fact that the Second Inaugural Address transcends in 
power that other magnificent production, the Gett3 ? sburg 
Speed'. 

The interregnum following Lincoln's first election was 
a fearful strain upon the Republic. Up to that time it 
was the severest ordeal our Nation had met. The new 
President was very right in telling his neighbors that his 
was a greater task than that which devolved upon Wash- 
ington. But it can be shown that the period just previous 
to Lincoln's second Inauguration was even more mo- 
mentous. Jackson and Washington had both met dis- 
union sentiment. The Whiskey Insurrection and the 
Null i fur's BanqUet were precedents which helped in deal- 
ing with this sentiment. To be sure, they were inade- 
quate, but they were something, and the people leaned 
upon them. Though by no means easy, Lincoln's duty 
was plain in ISM. Not so in 1865. In 1861, on the issue 
ol Union, he had successfully initiated his Administration, 
for the majority of those who had voted for Douglas or 

Response t<> a Serenade, Oct, [9, 



130 

Bell stood with him there. But the war was an entirely 
new phase of National life, and by 1865 still stranger 
phases were directly before us What precedent in our 
histon T was there to follow in drawing- together a kindred 
people, one-half of whose numbers were subjugated by the 
other ? President Lincoln had proposed his scheme of 
reconstruction to his cabinet, by whom it was rejected; 
and the most radical elements of his party made this policy 
the peculiar object of their anathemas. In a fearful sense 
on that anxious Fourth of March, 1865, all eyes were upon 
Abraham Lincoln ; all felt that for the hour he must bear 
the burden alone. A single ambiguously turned phrase 
might prove disastrous ; any undue sentiment would cause 
bitter disgust. Yet, when it is studied, the Second 
Inaugural Address is seen to be great, not only for what 
it says, but also for what it does not say. 

The thoughts in this Address are the noblest ever put 
forth by Lincoln. The war had taught men to be brief, 
direct, and intense. Lincoln knew his words were to be 
echoed in every household. They could be neither repre- 
sentative nor sufficient without humbly striking the 
highest chords; Hope, Freedom, Justice, the Union, and 
Confidence in God. To realize this fully, the proper study 
of the Address is by comparison. If there is consummate 
tact and deep devotion in the first Inaugural, to a greater 
degree these are exalted in the second. A weaker soul 
would have dropped into exultation; would have encouraged 
selfish rejoicing. It was not possible for Abraham Lin- 
coln to forget the Nation's need of humility. 

If anyone doubts this Chief-Magistrate's wonderful 
fitness for his task let such an one carefully study the 
opening paragraph of this Inaugural. It has been elo- 
qently said that our Civil War " was the only struggle in 
history in which one army fought to elevate the privileges 
of theother." History is bound to declare that Abraham 
Lincoln spake this Address for every erring brother then in 
rebellion against his own greatest good. Had the} r not 
been blinded by hate, the men of the South could have 
read in this Inaugural the most hopeful words a great ruler 
could utter. When this ruler fell, their best possibilities 
were postponed ; how long, future history alone shall tell. 



131 

The Second Inaugural Address is great also for what 
it suggests. Lincoln loved to regard himself as the peo- 
ple's advocate ; he never forgot his client. Here again is 
the lawyer's art of directing to the fact so that the mind 
instinctively grasps it, yet feels it has struggled to reach 
it. Wendell Phillips never made such an eloquent appeal 
for the bondmen as may be found in the spirit of this 
Inaugural ; yet Phillips gave his whole life to the cause of 
emancipation, while with Lincoln it was an incident — a 
great incident to be sure, but such only. It is a tender 
and sublime quality of character which endures the 
calumny of men professing to do noble things, which is 
able to rise above such calumm*, and which to a far great- 
er extent compasses the professed work of the calumniators 
themselves. But this, Lincoln accomplishes. The whole 
previous struggle for human independence had not pro- 
duced such a triumphant vindication of the rights of the 
negro as we find suggested in the Second Inaugural Ad- 
dress. Each succeeding year accentuates the justice of 
this burning acknowledgment of the Nation's sin. 

Wonderful as the entire production is, the closing 
paragraph of the Inaugural is worthiest of the studeni/s 
thought. When we remember that Lincoln stood at the 
head of the greatest Nation of earth; that already he was 
assured of victory in one of the most momentous struggles 
of mankind; that he was hated profoundly, and 
without cause, then it is the moral sublimity of the closing 
words of this Address stands forth. In them there is 
nothing of the pride of station; quite the reverse. They 
do not sound an exultant strain. They breathe naught 
but love for all; there is tenderness even for the men who 
had brought the evils of disunion upon the Nation. They 
seek to carry a great people straight to the altar. They 
pathetically appeal for the unqualified espousal and ex- 
ercise of patriotic duty, and, more than this, sweep away 
from the narrow bounds of self alone to all Nations for all 
time. 

The sympathetic student of this Address, at home or 
abroad, can hardly restrain himself from dealing in pane- 
gyric. Sa}-s a distinguished English critic: 

" Mr. Lincoln had to tell his countrymen that after a four 



132 

years' struggle, the war was practically ended. The four years' 
agony, the passion of love which he felt for his country, his joy in 
her salvation, his sense of tenderness for those who fell, of pity 
mixed with sternness for the men who had deluged the land with 
blood, — all the thoughts these feelings inspired were behind Lincoln 
pressing for expression. A writer of less power would have been 
overwhelmed. Lincoln remained master of the emotional and in- 
tellectual situation. In three or four hundred words that burn with 
the heat of their compression, he tells the history of the war and 
reads its lesson. No nobler thoughts were ever conceived. No man 
ever found words more adequate to his desire."* 

The comment of Abraham Lincoln itself is enough to 
forever fix in the minds of men the worth of this Address. 
He said in reply to a congratulatory letter from a friend: 

"Thank you for yours on 1113' little notification speech, and on 
the recent inaugural address. I expect the latter to wear as well 
as — perhaps better than anything I have produced; but I believe it 
is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered by being shown 
that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty 
and them. To deny it, however, in this case, is to deny that there is 
a God governing the world. It is a truth which I thought needed to 
be told, and, as whatever of humiliation there is in it falls most 
directly on myself, I thought others might afford for me to tell it." f 

A third great factor which made for the success of 
President Lincoln, is to be found in the unflinching con- 
fidence the people had in his religious convictions. The 
student is well aware of the fact that this is a dangerous 
ground to traverse — one upon which have been fought many 
bitter controversies; and one which for all time will pro- 
bably be open to new combatants. Still no estimate of the 
man's services can be at all comprehensive without taking 
into account the deep religious nature of Abraham Lincoln. 
No great character may hope to escape the judgment 
(~ of History concerning the spiritual side of its life. And 
more and more will this be true as the development of the 
race deepens and broadens. Indeed some, characters come 
down to us of whom we know little, save their religious 
motives. Thus John Bunyan's life shall be projected into 
the future so long as the world has its "Vanity Fairs;" 
and so long as Christians ascend the steeps of " Delectable 
Mountains. " Even the grandest of all English authors 
lives not so much because of "77 Penseroso" and 
" IS Allegro " as i because of the deep draughts of divine 
inspiration welling from the record of "Paradise Lost" 
and " Paradise Regained. " 



*I<ondon Spectator, Vol. 66, p. 629. 

tt,etter to Thurlow Weed, Mar. is, 1865. Lincoln's Works, Vol. 11. paire ■:•' . 1 . 



On the other hand a defect in spiritual nature. <>r the 
want of such nature, is bound to be intensified in the 
minds of men the more critically such character is studied. 
Witness the present research in the life of Napoleon the 

First; never before in the histor}- of events has his 
character stood forth so deeply black. 

The philosophy of all this is simple. The world is 
bound to know a man's spiritual life, for without such 
knowledge there can be no hope or understanding". 
Hence, the man wdio blasphemes the name of Christ has 
no truer conception of spiritual forces in character than 
has the child of Niagara, whose vision is lost in the 
prismatic rainbow of its mist. To this general law of un- 
derstanding Lincoln is no exception. Only as we peer into 
his inner soul may we expect to translate "the deeds of this 
man; than whom no being- more profoundly religious ever 
lived. 

Critics are apt to regard Lincoln along- the Idas of their 
personal traits of heart and mind; hence he is so presented 
as to be a startling paradox. A certain act of his will 
characterized by one student Humaneness; by another 
Mysteriousness; and by a third Christianity. In a sense 
each might be right; in another each might be wrong, for 
he combined every one of these elements. 

At best, an}' study of Lincoln's religious life is 1 
with difficulties. His early days were spent amongst men 
who were not noted for over piety. In the wild woods of 
Indiana he learned to assimilate wilder superstitions, 
which he could never quite free himself. He who has felt 
the force of earl)- training knows the almost inseparable 
bonds it fastens. But one thing in this matter is clear; 
out from the most adverse surroundings, Lincoln came 
with certain high principles of conduct and habits of living- 
well fixed. Thus he was not immoral, and never ceased 
to keep before him an elevated ideal of manhood. 

He grew to be deeply religious. In him religion was at 
first a mingling of the melancholy, of the poetical, of the 
fatalistic. Then reason asserted its sway and ruled him 
with a rod of iron. He once said his religious experience 
was like that of an old man whom he had heard at an In- 
diana church-meeting and who said; " When I do good, 1 



134 

feel good, and when I do bad I feel bad, and that's my re- 
ligion." * 

Probably this was true so far as Lincoln's early spirit- 
ual life was concerned, but he learned that feeling- was 
just as uncertain in the religious world as it is in the meta- 
physical. 

A great deal has been written concerning his infi- 
delity, and much evil has been done thereby. There can be 
no doubt of his scepticism, and he probably never became 
orthodox ; at least so far as some of the ordinances of the 
Church are concerned. Indeed, when a young man, he 
seemed to boast of his infidelity, and even went so far as 
to write a book upon the subject, which, fortunatelv, a far- 
seeing friend destroyed. The biographer Lamon seems to 
misunderstand the religious life of Lincoln, and, in a tone 
almost bitter, attempts to refute the claim that he ex- 
perienced any change of thought on the question. 

But, to an unprejudiced student, after 1830, two lives 
of the man shape themselves. There was the career from 
1830 to 1854, and the one from 1854 on. Nothing is plainer 
than the fact that Lincoln developed marvelously during 
these two periods, and especially during the last portion 
of the latter one. In fact, the final four years of his life 
may be set down as an era of themselves, so peculiarl} r ex- 
pansive seemed his mind and heart through them all. 
After the time when a great people chose him as their 
leader, the student finds a new seriousness — different from 
the seriousness of his anti-slavery productions — in the 
speeches and letters of Abraham Lincoln. There is noth- 
ing of the carelessness of religious expression which may 
be found in some of his earlier addresses and conversations. 
At all times there seems to be a deep reverence for and 
belief in things divine. This was the natural result of 
Lincoln's intuitive grasp of circumstances, for he knew 
that the American people were profoundly- religious, and 
that no man could represent them who failed to compre- 
hend this element of their life. Thus his Farewell Address 
was unusually religious in tone as were many of his 
speeches which he delivered while en route to Washington. 
Nor was this attitude assumed. To the man that admits 
the honest}- of Lincoln's character one explanation alone is 

* Herndon, Life of Lincoln, Vol. II, Page 149. 



135 

possible — he felt his sentiments, and was a changed and 
changing man religiously. A careful study of his speeches 
and letters during- the first years of his Administration 
will show this to be true. 

The fact is, Abraham Lincoln was called to pass 
through deep waters himself early in his Presidential 
career. No man could love his children more ardently than 
did he, and one of them dropped out of this life in the fore- 
part of the year 1862. Those who were in his household 
tell us that the father was fearfully moved by this death — 
that he was for a time unreconciled and well-nigh demoral- 
ized. As a mere matter of history, there can be no doubt 
that Abraham Lincoln was passing through one of the 
severest struggles of his whole life. It found expression 
in almost agonized utterance; not of his personal grief, 
but concerning the great contest in which the Nation was 
engaged. On September, 30, 1862, he wrote the following 
" Meditation on the Divine Will: " 

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims 
to act in accordance with the will of God. Both maybe, and one 
must be. wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at 
the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's 
purpose is something different from the purpose of either party : and 
yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do. are of the 
best adaptation to effect his purpose. I am almost ready to say that 
this is probably true: that God wills this contest, and wills that it 
shall not end yet. By his mere great power on the minds of the now 
contestants, he could have either saved or destroyed the Onion with- 
out a human contest. Yet the contest began. And. havitiL r bi'gun. 
he could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the con- 
test proceeds." 

What a strange paragraph this would have seemed had 
it fallen under the observation of some of his old com- 
panions back in Illinois ! It was such a paragraph as even 
Lincoln could not have understood five years previously — 
much less have written. Another passage must be quoted 
to show his growth — slow, but certain — along Christian 
lines of thought. On September 4, 1864, he wrote in part 
as follows to Mrs. Eliza P. Gurney : 

" * * * 1 am much indebted to the good Christian people of 
the country for their constant prayers and consolations : and to no 
one of them more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty 
are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to 
accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy ter- 



136 

urination of this terrible war long- before this : but God knows best 
and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge his wisdom, 
and our own error therein, meanwhile we must work earnestly in the 
best lights he gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the 
great ends he ordains. Surely he intends some great good to follow 
this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal 
could stay.' ******* * •• 

And onl} T three days later in reply to a delegation of 
colored people who presented him with a handsome Bible, 
he said : 

,; * * In regard to this great book, I have but to say, it is 
the best gift God has given to man. 

"All the good Saviour g'ave to the world was communicated 
through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. 
All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and heareafter, 
are to be found portrayed in it. To you I return my most sincere 
thanks for the very elegant copy of the great Book of God which 
3 T ou present " 

The honest student must admit that here has been a 
remarkable growth — there is evidence of a struggle to 
reach his then present ground, as may be seen when the 
" Meditation on the Divine Will " and the letter to Mrs. 
Gurney are compared. Still he was harassed by doubt. 
Melancholy feelings would come over him, and he would 
seem to be little else than a fatalist. He found the remedy 
for this trouble, however. But one year before his assas- 
sination he said to his old friend Speed : " I ain profitably 
engaged in reading the Bible. Take all of this book upon 
reason that you can, and the balance on faith, and you will 
live and die a better man." 

It is probably true that he reached the high-water mark 
of expression concerning his religious experience when he 
delivered the wonderful Second Inaugural Address. 
Though he was not an orthodox Christian, none could 
have given utterance to nobler Christian sentiment, and its 
production will stamp his Administration as having a 
deeply religious element. 

Perhaps the worth of Histor} T in regard to Lincoln's 
spiritual nature is comparatively valueless. Certain it is 
no man ever fully understood the religious life of this 
mysterious person. It is likely that he did not himself, but 
his letters and speeches, and conversations are the best 
data. Writers upon the subject cannot agree ; when we 



137 

have such antagonistic sentiments as these it is hard to 
determine. Sa}-s Lamon : 

"Never did he let fall from his lips or his pen an ex- 
pression which remotely implied the slightest faith in 
Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of Men." 

On the other hand, in reply to an inquiry by Dr. 
Abbott, Wm. H. Herndon wrote, February is, 1870: 

" I maintain that Mr. Lincoln was a deeply religious 
man at all times and places, in spite of his transient 
doubts." 

In the quotation given above from the Address of Lin- 
coln to the colored people of Baltimore, who presented to 
him the Bible, the facts are against Lamon. 

But Lincoln himself said more than once that he was 
forced to his knees, for he had no where else to go. His 
intimate friends knew him to be a praying man and many 
thought him a Christian. He once said to Mr. Chittenden, 
in 1864: 

"That the Almighty does make use of human agencies and 
directly intervenes in human affairs, is one of the plainest state- 
ments of the Bible. I have had so many evidences of his direction, 
so many instances when I have been controlled by some other ■ 
than my own will, that I cannot doubt that this power conies from 
above. I frequently see my way clear to a decision when I am con- 
scious that I have no sufficient facts upon which to found it. But 1 
cannot recall one instance in which I have followed such a dec 
where the results have been unsatisfactory: whereas, in almost 
every instance where I have yielded to the views of others, I have 
had occasion to regret it. I am satisiied that when the Almighty 
wants me to do or not to do a particular thing he finds a way of 
letting" me know it.'* 

In order to understand Lincoln's religious experience 
at all, we must understand him as well, for in exact pro- 
portion as we understand him we shall know his experi- 
ence. A study of the man brings out three apparent traits 
and three more which are intensely subtle. 

He was a man of deep humility. No man in his posi- 
tion could feel more democratic than did he. He was ever 
ready to acknowledge himself as being but an instrument; 
and he was intensely zealous for the honor of others to 
whom honor was due. 

He was also humane. The traits of tenderness which 
led him to protect young animals and weak companions 



138 

during- his youthful days, led him to guard the rights of 
the defenseless, when the greatest power given to man on 
earth, was in his hands. The widowed mother or wife 
never left him injured by unjust treatment; even the friend- 
less drummer-boy could, and did literally, fly to the Presi- 
dent's arms, and the tears of chief and subject mingled. 
The unfortunate soldier had no warmer friend than his 
Commander-in-chief, and the enslaved negro looked with 
veneration upon " Massa Linkum." 

He was honest. 

He was of an analytic habit. This first of the more 
subtle traits, was profoundly developed in him. It came 
out in the debates with Douglas, and may be traced in all 
his letters and speeches during the struggle for the Union. 

He was philosophic. Everything had its cause, and 
Lincoln could not rest until he ascertained this cause. 
ThUs, when he stood by the side of Niagara, the thought 
which impressed him most was not of its grandeur nor of its 
force, but whence its supply of water! This spirit lay at 
the bottom of all his analysis — he could no more help look- 
ing at things philosophically, than he could help looking 
at them earnestly ; hence his safeness as a leader. 

He was conservative. Often he had to tell people that 
he was no prophet, but a servant. He rested securely on 
what had been well done in the past, and no amount of 
seeming fallacy disconcerted him, for he always hastened 
to bring his philosophic habits of analysis to bear upon it. 
Hence, when he took up the new, he did not discard what 
was worth saving of the old, but, with unusual ability, he 
formed a combination of the two. Now, all these charac- 
teristics made themselves felt in his religious experience. 
In one's faith, none can be more humble than was Lincoln. 
It presents an aspect of sweetness and calmness which is 
startling when one considers his early life. 

Again, his humaneness would not permit him to take 
the orthodox view of hell. He could not conceive of a God 
of love who should condemn his children to eternal pain. 
Seeing how he often shuddered in the presence of a duty 
which demanded stern justice, and because he laid aside 
every such case that he possibly could we may readily 
understand why his mind, or perhaps heart rather, would not 



139 

grasp the dogma of eternal punishment. Here he was 
weak. Many a rascal who richly deserved death escaped. 
Lincoln was simply unable to withstand the temptation to 
be lenient, and he was obliged to direct his attendants not 
to let in pleading women, whom they might suspect, for 
he could not resist their pleadings. 

In his religious convictions as ever}-where else, he 
was honest. Though he would like to have seen victory — 
God-ordained victory — at the outset of the struggle, he 
would not blindly claim it as a fact when it was not. Nor 
would he allow visiting delegations to gain a false im- 
pression of his religious views, even though he knew such 
intelligence might be unwelcome to them. 

But, above all, he was honest with himself. No man 
can tell the agony of doubt through which he passed; only 
hints are given in some of his letters and remarks to 
others. But, it is evident that what religious experiences 
he did enjoy, came through might}- struggle; and what 
triumphs he gained were the result of intense spiritual 
travail. It was when he came to apply his mental char- 
acteristics in his searchings after religious truth, that 
Lincoln was plunged into the dark. His conservatism; 
his philosophic habits of analysis would not stand in the 
stead of simple faith. Thus, in the course of time, he 
learned to take all upon reason that he could, and to accept 
"the balance on faith." As with any other man, so with 
him, it was a lesson to be learned that matters spiritual 
cannot be measured, and weighed, and analyzed by the 
mental faculties of perception and reason. 

If it were true of no other, there was one feature <>t" 
his religious experience which would lead the student to 
believe it was all genuine ; he struggled for light, and 
never receded from a position when once there was dem- 
onstrated to him its soundness. Consequentlv his religious 
growth was slow, but intenseh'sure. As he was a changed 
man, in almost every respect, on April 14, 1865, from what 
he was on March 4, 1861, so he was correspondingly de- 
veloped in religious life. 

The critic may inquire: "What has all this to do 
with the salvation of the Union?" The answer is plain ; 
it was absolutely necessary if Lincoln was to endure the 



140 

strain his calling- imposed upon him. To the religious 
man, it is evident that he never could have been successful 
without a firm trust in divine Providence ; to the irreligious 
man, who has any confidence in Lincoln, it should be 
enough that he himself declared that, without the assist- 
ance of God, he should inevitably fail in his undertaking. 
Certainly, the servant of the people, in a time of supreme 
history-making, could not persistently interpret his com- 
mission wrongly ! As backwoods life in Kentucky and 
Illinois developed his splendid physique, so that he was 
able to withstand the tax which no man, physically weak, 
could have endured for a fourth of the time he did ; as his 
life amongst the hardy frontiermen and shrewd circuit- 
lawyers; as his tilts with Douglas, and the minions of pro- 
slavery sentiment, strengthened his mental ability to deal 
with the same elements in open rebellion as no man less 
prepared could have done ; so his religious experience, 
later, but as influential, and even more profound, taught 
him to interpret aright the religious life of the Nation, 
and supplied him with spiritual strength to endure the 
trial of its attempted dismemberment. He who will dem- 
it is ready to deny the force of any existence beyond the 
physical and the mental. In a word, Lincoln's spiritual 
experience may be summed up as follows ; though not 
demonstrative, he was deeply religious, though not an 
orthodox Christian, his deeds were in perfect harmony with 
the practices of the Christian faith. 

In making an estimate of the services of Lincoln, one 
must keep in mind the elements of American life. Of us, 
as of no other people, it ma} 7 be said we are a land of para- 
dox. Our ancestors burned witches, and exiled Quakers; 
while their sons instituted a government which takes no 
cognizance of religion or of freedom of speech. Our fore- 
fathers raised such a din about the ears of George III., 
because he dared to tax us unjustly, that the crazy old mon- 
arch tumbled from his throne a confirmed misanthrope and 
hater of popular liberty, while for the sake of our own 
coffers, we kept a race in servile bondage eighty long 
years. 

Publicists tell us that the one virtue of Nineteenth 
Century thought and action is that it tends to break down 



141 

the artificial barriers between man and man. Quite likely! 
But we are to-day, and have ever been, a Nation of 
aristocrats; and the trend of our aristocracy is the meanest 
ever evolved by the mind of man — ordinarily\ We persist 
in maintaining- an aristocracy of birth; not of that disgust- 
ing kind which obtains amongst some Nations, but we 
bow to heredity of brains and character. The founders of 
the Republic were of this class. There was Franklin and 
Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams, and Washington; behind 
them stood Winthrop and Bacon, Penn and Williams, and 
Standish; since them have come Sumner and Garrison, 
Webster and Seward, and Lincoln. 

In an hour of crisis, every one looks for the ideal 
leader. English critics say that we are too prone to rely on 
this hope; that we have not confidence in ourselves. Be 
this as it is, we have never failed of developing a leader; 
and two of them are among the world's greatest. Not be- 
fore, within the compass of a single century, have two 
such characters as Lincoln and Washington been evolved. 
A renowned American orator has said that Washington 
resembles a painting, set behind a glass; an object of ad- 
miration, but incapable of arousing much feeling-. He is 
wrong. The child sees the wig and queue, the knee- 
breeches, and small-clothes, the slippers and lace front, 
but the man looks beyond, and beholds Yorktown and 
Valley Forge; he sees the Titan of the Constitutional con- 
vention, and the hand that virtually settled the conflict of 
1861-1865, when it penned the Proclamation to David 
Bradford and his insurgents in Western Pennsylvania, 
maintaining the authority of the central government. 

In his excellent defense of the rights of Washington's 
memory. Lodge has drawn with a pencil none too ardent.* 
But the fact must remain that while Washington was a 
great American, and a thorough American, he was not the 
ideal American. He was born before our independence 
was thought of, and died before the advent of a distinctive 
American literature. He was but four removes from Brit- 
ish aristocracy and invested his qwn social life with many 
of the forms of British society. 

Upon the other hand, Lincoln was solely a product of 
our own civilization. He knew nothing of royalty and 



See Lodge's Washington. 



142 

would have cared nothing- for it if he had. His ancestry- 
was of a kind which never experienced the exclusiveness 
of a refined social order. He grew from the soil and was 
ever of the soil, i. e. never had the desire to travel 
abroad. His earliest studies were in American history 
and American polity. He was evolved from the most char- 
acteristic type of American life. But his evolution was 
logical, as much so as that of Cromwell or Napoleon. 
True, he came unexpectedly ; it was because he was to 
grapple with the subtle elements in our National existence. 
Though he sprang into the conflict unheeded, generations 
had contributed to his life. His parent-stock flourished in 
the "Old Dominion;" he himself came from the frontiers 
of Kentucky, and he developed into early manhood on the 
prairies of Illinois. As the Nation is wont to call George 
Washington its Father, so may it call Abraham Lincoln 
its son — for East and South and West were his home. 

Thus was Lincoln the man of destiny; fitted for the 
undertaking of the problem his life so marvelously solved. 
It is sometimes claimed that his martyrdom enhances his 
glory; perhaps so, but not his worth. Let it not be for- 
gotten that Washington died in an honored old age. Has 
time tarnished his fame? 

Some one has said (a distinguished scholar he is) that 
Lincoln was not a type. But he was, else his life may now 
be written down as being a failure. It is inevitable that 
the American people shall for a time apotheosize his name; 
but they shall recover themselves. It is well to remember 
his failings, his lamentable weaknesses; any student of his 
life knows them — then he is not so far above us that his 
life may not be taken as a t} r pe. It was because his judg- 
ment was ripe on most great questions, that he was able to 
best direct in the preservation of the Union. Of all the 
reforms of our National life, past and to be, he had a 
healthy conception; and his life was practical. It lay in 
touch with the people's best possibilities, and hence it was 
a safe one. 

A Democracy like ours is bound to produce at least 
three types of character; great, and in their places, 
essential. 

The first type is represented b} r Jackson — unlettered, 



143 

headstrong - , tyrannical. In his destruction of the National 
credit; in his inconsistent policies of administration; in his 
weak acquiescence in the whims of ignorant sovereignty, 
he represents the most dangerous elements of Democracy; 
the flounderers and the incapables, upon whose graves must 
rise the true structure of real Democracy. 

The second type is represented by a character un- 
trained in scholastic lore, but a profound student and ac- 
complished scholar in the school of life — Abraham Lincoln 
was not a partisan for he was ever guided by reason. No 
man before him was so truly Democratic as he. His name 
was apt — " Father of a Multitude. " In certain respects, i. 
e., in the development of heart and of mind, no type of 
Democratic character shall soon surpass him, for in him is 
embodied the best features of Democracy — its saving ele- 
ments, and the substance of what it must ever be. 

The third type of Democracy shall be built from the 
second. Its exponent shall have the polish of the schools. 
Like Lincoln he shall be free from the taint of false pride 
— either of intellect or of place ; he shall have the culture 
of a century's uninterrupted onward achievement. Like 
Lincoln he shall feel his ground, and be sure. While great 
problems are before the American people, and pressing for 
solution, the fundamental problem of them all has been 
disposed of ; the Union is perpetual. If Abraham Lincoln 
had led the American people to the accomplishment of 
anything less than this, his life would have been counted a 
failure ; he could not have led them to the accomplishment 
of anything greater ! 



a6ibliograpb£. 



Abbott— History of the Civil War in America. 

Adams— South Side View of Slavery. 

Adams — History of the United States. 

Anderson — Political Conspiracies Preceding the Rebellion. 

Arnold — Life of Abraham Lincoln. 

Bagehot — The English Constitution. 

p , \ History of the United States. 

Bancroft -. Memoria j Address on Lincoln. 

Barrett — Life of Abraham Lincoln. 

Benton — Thirty Year's View. 

Blaine — Twenty Years of Congress. 

Buckingham— America; Historical, Statistical and Descriptive. 

Carr — Missouri. 

Charming— Works of Webster. 

Chittenden— Reminiscences of Lincoln. 

Cooke — Virginia. 

Cooper — American Politics. 

Cox— Three Decades of Federal Legislation. 

Curtis — Life of Webster. 

Davis — Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. 

Draper — History of the Civil War in America. 

Elliot — Debates. 

.p. , \ Critical Period of American History. 

* e J American Political Ideas. 

Ford — History of Illinois. 

Gillet — Democracy in the United States. 

Greeley — The American Conflict. 

Hamilton — The Federalist. 

Helper The Impending Crisis. 

Herndon— Life of Abraham Lincoln. 

Hildreth — History of the United States. 

Holland —Life of Abraham Lincoln. 

Hopkins — View of Slavery. 

Howells— Life of Abraham Lincoln. 

Hughey -Slavery and Secession. 

Jefferson — Works. 

[ohnson — American Politics. 

fohnson O. — Garrison and the Anti. Slavery Movement. 

Julian — l'i ilitical Recollections. 

Lalor — Cyclopedia. 

[.union — Life ol Abraham Lincoln. 

Landon— Constitutional History of the United States. 



145 

. , , I Life of Webster. 

* / Life of Washington. 

May— Recollections of the American Slavery ( lonflicl . 

McClure — Lincoln and Men of War Times. 

McLaughlin — Life of (ass. 

McMaster— History of the People ol the United States. 

. . \ Life of Jefferson. 

Morse - , . f . J . , , T . , 

I I ite ol Alii aham 1 .incoln. 

v i , , r \ I .lie oi Abraham I .incoln. 

\ icolay and I lav .„ , ... , 
/ J \ \\ orks ol Lincoln. 

I'atton — Concise History of the American People. 

Phillips Speeches and 1 .ectures. 

Pike — The Prostrate State. 

Pitkin — History of the United States. 

Pollard — The Lost Cause. 

l'oore. Pen: Perley, — Charters and Constitutions of the I nited Si 

Preston — Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1863. 

,, , ( Life of Lincoln. 

Raymond < u . . rT . , , , , . . 

f History of Lincoln s Administration. 

Reemelin — Critical Review of American Politics. 

Rhodes — History of the United Stales Since the Compromise ol 1850 

Ridpath— History of the United States. 

Robinson— Kansas; Its Interior and Exterior Life. 

Sargent- Public Men and Events. 

Schouler — History of the United States. 

Schurz — Life of Henry Clay. 

a . .] \ Diplomatic History of the War for the Union 
aewara | Works 

Sheahan Life of Stephen A. Douglas. 

Sprague — Speeches and Addresses. 

Spring — Kansas. 

Stanwood— History of Presidential Elections. 

Stephens — War Between the States. 

Story — On the Constitution. 

Summer — Life of Jackson. 

VanBuren— Political Parties in the United States. 

, u„i. t \ Life of Calhoun, 
von Hoist \ „ . .. , TT . .,_..,_ 

j Constitutional History of the United States. 

Wansey — Excursion to the United States of America. 

Welles — Stanton and Seward. 

Williams— History of the Negro Race in America, [619 1880. 

Wilson, W. — Division and Reunion. 

Wilson, II.— Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in tho United Stal 

Winsor— Narrative and Critical History of the United States. 

young 1 — The American Statesman. 



American Almanac, 1861. 

American State Papers. 

Annals of < Congress. 

Annual Encyclopedia, 1861-1865 

Atlantic Monthly. 

1 Vniury .Magazine. 

1 1 mgressii inal I rlobe. 



146 



Edinburgh Review. 

The Forum. 

Harper's Monthly Magazine. 

Harper's Weekly. 

The Independent. 

Life of Garrison, by his Child 



London Quarterly Review. 



Messages and Documents of the War Depart 

The Nation. 

New York Christian Advocate. 

The Northwestern Christian Advocate. 

Pro Slavery Arguments — Essay. 

Scribner's Magazine 

Statesman's Manual. 

The Spectator. 



